On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:53:56AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Well, officially downgrading isn't supported (although it typically works)
> *and* losing files is one of the problems of our merged-/usr solution (see
> [1]). I *suspect* this might be the cause. We're working hard (well, helmut
> is)
On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 06:53 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Well, officially downgrading isn't supported (although it typically
> works) *and* losing files is one of the problems of our merged-/usr
> solution (see [1]). I *suspect* this might be the cause. We're
> working
> hard (well, helmut is) to
On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 21:57 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Furthermore, this is a downgrade from a replacing package to a
> replaced
> package. Unless you also --reinstall the package at the end, missing
> files
> are quite to be expected.
Shouldn't that case be something that DPKG could detect an
Hi
On 2/29/24 14:57, Steve Langasek wrote:
Furthermore, this is a downgrade from a replacing package to a replaced
package. Unless you also --reinstall the package at the end, missing files
are quite to be expected.
I wonder if this could be improved -- e.g. by ignoring Replaces:
relationshi
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 06:53:56AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> On 29-02-2024 4:47 a.m., Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > @d-d:
> > - How can it happen that purge *t64 packages and at the same time install
> >the previous package, and then the so file is missing?
> >I mean it's clear that
Hi,
On 29-02-2024 4:47 a.m., Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
@d-d:
- How can it happen that purge *t64 packages and at the same time install
the previous package, and then the so file is missing?
I mean it's clear that they use the same name, but shouldn't DPKG handle
the cleanly?
Wel
6 matches
Mail list logo
