On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>>
>> >I hope the pgp-i and pgp-us example will help you to see that surely
>most
>> >of these conflicts are gratuituous).
>>
>> I guess so. Hmmm. I'm still not con
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> >I hope the pgp-i and pgp-us example will help you to see that surely most
> >of these conflicts are gratuituous).
>
> I guess so. Hmmm. I'm still not convinced it's a major thing to be worried
> about. [.
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> >Please note that a suboptimal packaging does not legitimate the conflict.
> >For example, my unzip and unzip-crypt packages do conflict at each other,
> >and they are optional, so I should probably make th
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>Please note that a suboptimal packaging does not legitimate the conflict.
>For example, my unzip and unzip-crypt packages do conflict at each other,
>and they are optional, so I should probably make them compatible, like
>pgp-i and pgp-us, for example. [
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >
> >> >If there are optional packages that conflict with each other, we should
> >> >choose one to stay in optional and move the others to extra. (Or change/
>
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>> >If there are optional packages that conflict with each other, we should
>> >choose one to stay in optional and move the others to extra. (Or change/
>> >clarify the definition on the policy manual).
>>
>> T
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >If there are optional packages that conflict with each other, we should
> >choose one to stay in optional and move the others to extra. (Or change/
> >clarify the definition on the policy manual).
>
> The manual should be fixed IMHO - there are lots o
Enrique Zanardi writes:
>On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:22:39AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Am I missing something here? Where does it say that users should be able
>> to install _all_ optional packages?
>
>The policy manual suggests that:
>
>"2.2 Priorities
>[...]
> optional
> (In a sen
On Wed, 20 Jan, 1999, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >When selecting all packages of a certain priority there should be no
> >conflicts. If there are two MTA's, then one is optional, the other is
> >extra. I'm sure this is written down in one of our many policy, develop.
> >ref, packaging manuals.
>
>
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
> > When selecting all packages of a certain priority there should be no
> > conflicts.
>
> I think that if I try to install every package with priority extra
> some things will start complaining very loudly.
"extra"
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
>> Am I missing something here? Where does it say that users should be able
>> to install _all_ optional packages?
>
>When selecting all packages of a certain priority there should be no
>conflicts. If there are two MTA's, then one is optional, the other
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
> > When selecting all packages of a certain priority there should be no
> > conflicts.
>
> I think that if I try to install every package with priority extra
> some things will start complaining very loudly..
Isn't that what Santiago poi
Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
> When selecting all packages of a certain priority there should be no
> conflicts.
I think that if I try to install every package with priority extra
some things will start complaining very loudly..
Wichert.
--
==
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 10:22:39AM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> Santiago Vila writes:
> >>> smail is still optional, but conflicts with exim, so it should be extra.
> >>> hello-debhelper conflicts with hello, and has absolutely no extra
> >>> functionality over ordinary hello, so the binary sh
Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> Santiago Vila writes:
> >>> smail is still optional, but conflicts with exim, so it should be extra.
> >>> hello-debhelper conflicts with hello, and has absolutely no extra
> >>> functionality over ordinary hello, so the binary should be removed, in
> >>> either case it s
Santiago Vila writes:
>>> smail is still optional, but conflicts with exim, so it should be extra.
>>> hello-debhelper conflicts with hello, and has absolutely no extra
>>> functionality over ordinary hello, so the binary should be removed, in
>>> either case it should be extra.
>>> gmc conflicts
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > package foo needs to be priority extra since foo and bar conflict and are
> > both optional.
>
> Fine, but why should this be more quickly fixed than the same text sent to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] against ftp.debian.org?
Both should be fine, the bug report should be even bett
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > What do you mean with send "proper" mails...? Do you mean that the text of
> > Bug #29874 is improper in some way? I hope not.
>
> With "proper" I thought about mails to overrides-change like
>
> package foo needs to be priority extra since foo and
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > > > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution
> > > > > > > screens.
> > > > > > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report
> > > > > > > them *all*,
> > > > > > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution
> > > > > > screens.
> > > > > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them
> > > > > > *all*,
> > > > > > or may I ask our kind
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution
> > > > > screens.
> > > > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them
> > > > > *all*,
> > > > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *serious*
> > > > > d
On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution
> > > > screens.
> > > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them
> > > > *all*,
> > > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maint
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution screens.
> > > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them *all*,
> > > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *serious*
> > > dependency/conflict check *before* the
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > [...]
> > There are in total *ten* dselect Dependency/conflict resolution screens.
> > (using the PageForward key). Am I *really* required to report them *all*,
> > or may I ask our kind ftp.debian.org maintainers to do a *seri
24 matches
Mail list logo
