Bill Allombert writes:
> The problem is the expectation of the developers that wrote the Depends
> line: they expected that the non-free or-group would not replace the
> free group unless the user installed the non-free alternative before.
As a developer, that's not what I expect. I expect the
Hi Steve,
On Montag, 22. November 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If you conclude that this is something that needs to be documented in the
> release notes, please reassign it to the release-notes pseudopackage.
> However, there have been other reports that trying to upgrade apt first
> before upgra
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 603680 apt
Bug #603680 [apt,upgrade-reports] libnautilus-extension1: breaks nautilus-share
upgrade from lenny
Bug reassigned from package 'apt,upgrade-reports' to 'apt'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need a
reassign 603680 apt
thanks
I don't see anything here that requires further triaging in terms of an
upgrade report - the upgrade failure seems to be well understood.
If you conclude that this is something that needs to be documented in the
release notes, please reassign it to the release-notes pse
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:26:37PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > There are a variety of licenses in non-free and a user (or their lawyers)
> > can be
> > fine with some of them but not all. The choice of non-free packages
> > installed
> > should remain with the users.
> > Now apt is just
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:26:37PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:06, Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> >> if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
> >
> >> On Mittwoch, 17. Novemb
Bill Allombert writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Bill, so far you're the only one in #587279 objecting to the
>> clarification making the what-you-call "strange interpretation" crystal
>> clear (and following the way it was always handled).
> Nobody in #
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 21:06, Bill Allombert
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
>
>> On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> > I do not think it is correct to ever upgrade
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:44:43PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
> On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > I do not think it is correct to ever upgrade a free package to a non-free
> > one. Now, apt is
Hi,
as I was asked on IRC, this is how piuparts modifies apt+dpkgs
defaults, "most interestingly" it doesnt install recommends...:
def create_apt_conf(self):
"""Create /etc/apt/apt.conf inside the chroot."""
create_file(self.relative("etc/apt/apt.conf"),
Hi David,
On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> the message I meant was:
> > > E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be
> > > caused by held packages.
>
> that should be an error message from APT and I can't trigger this one -
> it would be a seri
Hi,
if you intend to reply to this subthread, please use the 587279 bug.
On Mittwoch, 17. November 2010, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I do not think it is correct to ever upgrade a free package to a non-free
> one. Now, apt is not at fault, the problem rather lie in a strange
> interpretation of polic
[Debian policy: For reference, this is bug #603680.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 12:59:00PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:34, Bill Allombert
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:35:55PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> [… snip …]
> >> apt-squeeze recently (see #5918
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:34, Bill Allombert
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:35:55PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
[… snip …]
>> apt-squeeze recently (see #591882) got a third option:
>> c) try installing another or-group member
>>
>> Note that while c) seems to be the "captain obvious" so
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:24, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Dienstag, 16. November 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> First of all: I can't reproduce this E:-message,
>
> thats from piuparts...
the message I meant was:
> > E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be
> > cau
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 09:35:55PM +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 15:21, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > as I was asked on IRC, this is how piuparts modifies apt+dpkgs
> > defaults, "most interestingly" it doesnt install recommends...:
>
> And that is the reason. (or at leas
Hi David,
thanks for your analysis!
On Dienstag, 16. November 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> First of all: I can't reproduce this E:-message,
thats from piuparts...
> So, what we could do now?
> If i see it correctly, we basically have two options:
> a) use a newer apt for upgrade
> b) drop
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 21:35:55 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> So, what we could do now?
> If i see it correctly, we basically have two options:
> a) use a newer apt for upgrade
> b) drop the or
>
> b) isn't really an option as other cases will arise (and have already) so
> i guess the relea
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 15:21, Holger Levsen wrote:
> as I was asked on IRC, this is how piuparts modifies apt+dpkgs
> defaults, "most interestingly" it doesnt install recommends...:
And that is the reason. (or at least the trigger)
First of all: I can't reproduce this E:-message, what i can se
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 14:10:42 +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> What happens according to the log (attached to this bug) is:
>
> 1. nautilius-share is installed in lenny
> 2. sources.lists are changed to squeeze
> 3. apt-get update
> 4. apt-get -yf dist-upgrade fails as quoted above
>
I can't rep
reassign 603680 apt,upgrade-reports
thanks
Hi,
On Dienstag, 16. November 2010, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 12:00 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> > during a test with piuparts I noticed your package breaks
> > nautilus-share's upgrade from lenny. Both installed fine in l
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 603680 apt,upgrade-reports
Bug #603680 [libnautilus-extension1] libnautilus-extension1: breaks
nautilus-share upgrade from lenny
Bug reassigned from package 'libnautilus-extension1' to 'apt,upgrade-reports'.
Bug No longer marked as found
Le mardi 16 novembre 2010 à 12:00 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> during a test with piuparts I noticed your package breaks nautilus-share's
> upgrade from lenny. Both installed fine in lenny, then the upgrade to squeeze
> fails.
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> libnaut
23 matches
Mail list logo
