Bastian Blank writes:
> What happens if someone install libc-bin without a new libc6 then?
At present, I would expect that to run into file conflicts with
libc6. In the future, yes, that could be a problem without
appropriate Breaks: or Conflicts: declarations. :-/
One possible workaround coul
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 02:05:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Cyril Brulebois writes:
>
> > Goswin von Brederlow (03/08/2009):
> >> Does it break aptitude too?
> >
> > I think that people involved in serious things like multiarch and glibc
> > might appreciate your staying quiet at som
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:21:53PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bastian Blank writes:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:38:32AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> Bastian Blank a écrit :
> >> > What happens if someone install libc-bin without a new libc6 then?
> >> > Forgot about that vari
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow (03/08/2009):
>> Does it break aptitude too?
>
> I think that people involved in serious things like multiarch and glibc
> might appreciate your staying quiet at some point given the quite huge
> mess you initially created. But maybe that's just me.
Goswin von Brederlow (03/08/2009):
> Does it break aptitude too?
I think that people involved in serious things like multiarch and glibc
might appreciate your staying quiet at some point given the quite huge
mess you initially created. But maybe that's just me.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Descri
Bastian Blank writes:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:38:32AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> Bastian Blank a écrit :
>> > What happens if someone install libc-bin without a new libc6 then?
>> > Forgot about that variant before as it is not forbidden by deps now.
>> If it is not the same major vers
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 11:38:32AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Bastian Blank a écrit :
> > What happens if someone install libc-bin without a new libc6 then?
> > Forgot about that variant before as it is not forbidden by deps now.
> If it is not the same major version, it will probably break, I'
Bastian Blank a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:02:24AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> I have finally decided to remove the Depends: line in libc-bin, even if
>> I don't really like that. My tests show that it works now, but don't
>> hesitate to test it on your machine.
>
> What happens if s
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 02:02:24AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I have finally decided to remove the Depends: line in libc-bin, even if
> I don't really like that. My tests show that it works now, but don't
> hesitate to test it on your machine.
What happens if someone install libc-bin without a
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 02:00:18PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-07-29 22:12 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:10:27PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> In short it looks like a Pre-Depends is overkill, and that a Depends is
> >> enough. I'll upload a new versio
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:22:02PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 06:02:29PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > We have the constraints that we should support upgrades from Lenny, so
> > we are stuck with apt/aptitude from lenny...
>
> Remove the dependency from libc-bin. As l
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 06:02:29PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> We have the constraints that we should support upgrades from Lenny, so
> we are stuck with apt/aptitude from lenny...
Remove the dependency from libc-bin. As long a libc-bin does not have
maintainer scripts, this should work.
Basti
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 06:58:45PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Except saying "apt sucks", I currently do not have more idea. Someone
> > else maybe?
> >
> /me suggests to try cupt and hides
>
We have the constraints that we should support upgrades from Lenny, so
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Except saying "apt sucks", I currently do not have more idea. Someone
> else maybe?
>
/me suggests to try cupt and hides
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digi
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 02:00:18PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-07-29 22:12 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:10:27PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> In short it looks like a Pre-Depends is overkill, and that a Depends is
> >> enough. I'll upload a new versio
On 2009-07-29 22:12 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:10:27PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> In short it looks like a Pre-Depends is overkill, and that a Depends is
>> enough. I'll upload a new version soon to experimental to fix that.
>>
>
> eglibc version 2.9-23+multia
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:10:27PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> In short it looks like a Pre-Depends is overkill, and that a Depends is
> enough. I'll upload a new version soon to experimental to fix that.
>
eglibc version 2.9-23+multiarch.1 is now in incoming and will be on the
mirrors soon.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 01:56:40PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-07-28 19:44 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > I have recently uploaded to experimental eglibc 2.9-23+multiarch, from
> > our multiarch branch. It doesn't use the multiarch paths yet, but it is
> > a first step toward multiar
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 03:52:28AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:28:30AM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > The only difference with the unstable version is that libc-bin and
> > > libc-dev-bin are splitted out of libc6 and libc6
On 2009-07-28 19:44 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I have recently uploaded to experimental eglibc 2.9-23+multiarch, from
> our multiarch branch. It doesn't use the multiarch paths yet, but it is
> a first step toward multiarch.
>
> The only difference with the unstable version is that libc-bin
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:28:30AM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > The only difference with the unstable version is that libc-bin and
> > libc-dev-bin are splitted out of libc6 and libc6-dev. This way it
> > complies with the Debian Policy requirement that the l
Hi,
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> The only difference with the unstable version is that libc-bin and
> libc-dev-bin are splitted out of libc6 and libc6-dev. This way it
> complies with the Debian Policy requirement that the libraries should
> not contain binaries, which is also a requirement for mult
Hi all,
I have recently uploaded to experimental eglibc 2.9-23+multiarch, from
our multiarch branch. It doesn't use the multiarch paths yet, but it is
a first step toward multiarch.
The only difference with the unstable version is that libc-bin and
libc-dev-bin are splitted out of libc6 and lib
23 matches
Mail list logo
