On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:27:00PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> What am I supposed to do? I could make debconf depend on perl-5.005, but it
> really works with any version of perl 5. Also, if only perl-5.004-base,
> perl-5.005, and perl-5.005-base were installed, and the alternatives pointed
> /usr/bi
Le Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:27:00PM -0700, Joey Hess écrivait:
> What am I supposed to do? I could make debconf depend on perl-5.005, but it
> really works with any version of perl 5. Also, if only perl-5.004-base,
> perl-5.005, and perl-5.005-base were installed, and the alternatives pointed
> /usr
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 11:28:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Yick. Perhaps the alternative priorities could be arranged differently?
> That doesn't address the real problem, which is that one version of perl may
> be installed and satisfy the dependancy, while the alternatives system makes
> anot
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Huh? perl-5.005 is priority: important, and it doesn't seem to conflict
> with anything else. How come it didn't get installed?
I dunno. I installed the base system from cd, went into dselect, selected
nothing that wasn't automatically selected, and installed, then went on t
On Tue, Oct 05, 1999 at 10:27:00PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> I have a package (debconf) that uses lib.pm. This is in perl-5.00[54]. It
> depends on perl5. I just installed a fresh unstable system, using the
> defaults. perl-5.004-base and perl-5.004 were installed, as was
> perl-5.005-base. perl-5.
I have a package (debconf) that uses lib.pm. This is in perl-5.00[54]. It
depends on perl5. I just installed a fresh unstable system, using the
defaults. perl-5.004-base and perl-5.004 were installed, as was
perl-5.005-base. perl-5.005 itself was not installed. perl -v says perl
5.005 is being used
6 matches
Mail list logo
