On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:17:38PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I wouldn't place any of Boost in that category. In fact, I wouldn't
place aptitude in that category, either.
aptitude was historically the recommended tool to use for upgrades because
it had the best dependency resolver for
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:59:45AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
This manual represents the opinion of a single developer.
And what does that have to do with the price of bananas in Iceland?
The fact that aptitude is currently the recommended tool for package
management
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:38:50AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
- When I type 'aptitude install foo', *removing* foo instead of upgrading
is not a valid solution and should never be offered.
It's still an outstanding (and irritating) bug as late as yesterday's
sid...
--
Jonathan
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:59:56AM -0400, Will wrote:
aptitude is the preferred package management tool, so I'm thinking
that the priority of libboost-iostreams should be upgraded [1][2].
[1]
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch02.en.html#_basic_package_management_operations
This
Steve Langasek wrote:
This manual represents the opinion of a single developer.
And what does that have to do with the price of bananas in Iceland?
The fact that aptitude is currently the recommended tool for package
management has various reasons: user interface, features, dependency
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:29:10PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:59:56AM -0400, Will wrote:
aptitude is the preferred package management tool, so I'm thinking
that the priority of libboost-iostreams should be upgraded [1][2].
[1]
Folks,
The package aptitude is priority important and depends on
libboost-iostreams, which is optional. This is a violation of
Policy section 2.5.
The request of Bug #588608 is to raise the priority of
libboost-iostreams to important. Reading Policy, I note that
important means:
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
I wouldn't place any of Boost in that category. In fact, I wouldn't
place aptitude in that category, either.
aptitude was historically the recommended tool to use for upgrades because
it had the best dependency resolver for handling the dist-upgrade
6, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote:
Steve M. Robbins st...@sumost.ca writes:
I wouldn't place any of Boost in that category. In fact, I wouldn't
place aptitude in that category, either.
aptitude was historically the recommended tool to use for upgrades because
it had
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.3-2
Severity: serious
Serious as per policy 2.5
Cheers,
Ron
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 05:06:54PM +0930, Ron r...@debian.org was heard to
say:
Serious as per policy 2.5
Guess we'd better increase the priority of iostreams, then.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
11 matches
Mail list logo
