On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:03:54PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I also only see three packages depending. I did not check all
> architectures, however. And more importantly, I did not check
> build-depends!
Right, I didn't think of those, and the large number of them does
complicate things.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 10:30:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
>On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 23:23 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:09:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>> >Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>[...]
>> >> Any hint on looking up r
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 23:23 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:09:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> >Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[...]
> >> Any hint on looking up reverse build-dependencies somehow?
> >
> >dak rm -Rn -s testing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:09:18PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
>Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Niko tyni wrote earlier:
>>> I wrote earlier:
In principle we could ignore that assumption from other packages and
simply drop the gs-common dependencies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 07:52:26AM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 November 2008 23:37:27 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Adding dependency while preserving conflict does not work: It still
>> allows old gs-common to be removed before installing t
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Niko tyni wrote earlier:
>> I wrote earlier:
>>> In principle we could ignore that assumption from other packages and
>>> simply drop the gs-common dependencies on ghostscript and
>>> ghostscript-x, and then file bugreports against packages failing to
>>> work. But real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Niko tyni wrote earlier:
> I wrote earlier:
>> In principle we could ignore that assumption from other packages and
>> simply drop the gs-common dependencies on ghostscript and
>> ghostscript-x, and then file bugreports against packages failing to
>
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 23:37:27 Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Adding dependency while preserving conflict does not work: It still
> allows old gs-common to be removed before installing the newer one.
What about a Pre-Depends: gs-common?
I know it is a hack, but it may at least ensure that gs-com
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 03:01:04PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:34:55PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> >The circular dependency I was referring to is that gs-common already
> >depends on (unversioned) ghostscript, and this introduces the other
> >direction. I'm not sure i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 09:17:09PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 November 2008 18:55:41 Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
>> > > > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > > Is thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:34:55PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:07:34PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> I am now preparing an updated package that makes ghostscript depend on
>> gs-common >= 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1.
>
>> @Niko: you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 09:17:09PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 November 2008 18:55:41 Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
>> > > > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > > Is thi
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 01:07:34PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I am now preparing an updated package that makes ghostscript depend on
> gs-common >= 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1.
> @Niko: you mention that this would cause a circular dependency. I
> believe that is not the case when the dependency is ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 09:17:09PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
>On Tuesday 04 November 2008 18:55:41 Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
>> > > > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
>> > > > Is thi
On Tuesday 04 November 2008 18:55:41 Niko Tyni wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> > > > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > > > Is this something that needs documentation in the release-notes ?
> > >
> > > I think it would be much better to fix th
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 05:02:42PM +1100, Mark Purcell wrote:
> On Friday 31 October 2008 08:00:49 Niko Tyni wrote:
> > reassign 503712 ghostscript 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1
> > severity 503712 serious
> [...]
>
> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> > > On 30/10/08 10:33,
On Friday 31 October 2008 08:00:49 Niko Tyni wrote:
> reassign 503712 ghostscript 8.62.dfsg.1-3.1
> severity 503712 serious
[...]
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52:28PM +0100, Giovanni Rapagnani wrote:
> > On 30/10/08 10:33, Niko Tyni wrote:
[...]
> > Is this something that needs documentation in th
Hi,
I'm pretty sure this bug is a duplicate of 503303, which look like duplicates
of #464559 (merged with #466027, #466695, #467059, #475530).
"Unfortunatly" those bugs are closed in sid/lenny, but thats exactly the
problem here (as we cannot upgrade apt in an etch pointrelease as upgrades
nee
18 matches
Mail list logo
