On Sunday 10 August 2008 11:56, Bob Cox wrote:
> Gabriel - thank you very much for your extremely useful reply. It all
> worked perfectly and having now successfully applied the patch, I can
> confirm that I cannot reproduce the bug.
Ahuh! Great. This is what we are made of.
Very good job every
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 09:11:18 +0200, Sven Joachim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 2008-08-10 01:41 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
>
> > Aha. The aptitude resolver isn't touching those packages at all, but
> > think maybe I see what *is* happening. The code that I wrote to use the
> > apt re
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 04:46:36 -0300, Gabriel Parrondo ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Come on, the debian people made patching software a children game. These
> are the simple steps you should follow:
> As root:
> aptitude install build-essential fakeroot
> apt-get build-dep aptitude
>
> As nor
El dom, 10-08-2008 a las 07:35 +0100, Bob Cox escribió:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 16:41:40 -0700, Daniel Burrows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 10:56:22AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> > > No, it'll spew large amounts of debuggin
On 2008-08-10 01:41 +0200, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Aha. The aptitude resolver isn't touching those packages at all, but
> think maybe I see what *is* happening. The code that I wrote to use the
> apt resolver as a fallback option is accidentally resetting every hold
> state in the database. D
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 16:41:40 -0700, Daniel Burrows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 10:56:22AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > No, it'll spew large amounts of debugging information to your
> > terminal which you can then paste into a m
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 10:56:22AM -0700, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> No, it'll spew large amounts of debugging information to your
> terminal which you can then paste into a mail to me. :-)
Aha. The aptitude resolver isn't touching those packages at all, but
think
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 06:17:47PM +0100, Bob Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard
to say:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 09:13:33 -0700, Daniel Burrows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 05:21:32PM +0200, Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > was heard to say:
> > > It's a bug.
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 09:13:33 -0700, Daniel Burrows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 05:21:32PM +0200, Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > It's a bug. If "aptitude safe-upgrade" can't find any packages that are
> > _not_ on hold (or forbidden), it wi
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 05:21:32PM +0200, Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> It's a bug. If "aptitude safe-upgrade" can't find any packages that are
> _not_ on hold (or forbidden), it will try to upgrade packages that you
> don't want to. See http://bugs.debian.org/466228.
T
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 17:21:32 +0200, Sven Joachim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 2008-08-09 17:11 +0200, Bob Cox wrote:
>
> > I have some packages on hold for a while and they have remained on hold
> > during several safe-upgrades. Now, all of a sudden, aptitude wants to
> > upgrade two of
On 2008-08-09 17:11 +0200, Bob Cox wrote:
> I have some packages on hold for a while and they have remained on hold
> during several safe-upgrades. Now, all of a sudden, aptitude wants to
> upgrade two of them.
>
> trantor:/home/bob# aptitude search ~ahold
> ih iceweasel- lightwe
I have some packages on hold for a while and they have remained on hold
during several safe-upgrades. Now, all of a sudden, aptitude wants to
upgrade two of them.
trantor:/home/bob# aptitude search ~ahold
ih iceweasel- lightweight web browser based on Mozilla
ih iceweasel-l10n-e
13 matches
Mail list logo
