Ok i see that you got apache in the middle of a transition, that is why
your check still see apache-perl as a source.
a few months ago there were 3 apache flavours built from 3 different
sources. apache, apache-ssl and apache-perl. Since the apache source code
was present in all of them and they
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:38:12 +0200 (CEST)
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> > The following is a list of packages whose names are inconsistent
> > with accepted behaviour (plz correct me if im wrong)
>
> Sorry for my ignorance but w
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:38:12PM +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> > apache-perl (apache, apache-perl)
> > libapache-mod-perl (apache, libapache-mod-perl)
>
> wearing my apache maintainer hat, apache-perl needs libapache-mod-perl to
> build and vice versa... shipping them togheter
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> The following is a list of packages whose names are inconsistent with
> accepted behaviour (plz correct me if im wrong)
Sorry for my ignorance but which is the accepted behaviour? i couldn't
find anything in the policies and in devel-reference (just had
The following is a list of packages whose names are inconsistent with
accepted behaviour (plz correct me if im wrong)
To my knowledge if a package is provided by multiple sources, then a
virtual package should be used.
Some packages only conflict on one architecture, im not sure if thats
acceptab
5 matches
Mail list logo
