On Jul 31 21:44, Andy Koppe wrote: > On 26 July 2010 09:41, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Is the above "The following packages are required to > > satisfy dependencies of your selection." ok? I'm wondering if it's > > a bit too wordy, but I admit I have no better way to say this. > > How about this? > > ====== > Unmet Dependencies Found [in bold] > The following packages are required to meet dependencies.
I would prefer "satisfy" instead of "meet". But it doesn't matter. Just go ahead. Thanks, Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
