Hi,
I notice, for example,
-rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm
while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel
packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each other.
Think of libelf0-devel and libelf1-devel which both
Am Donnerstag 04 Oktober 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
Hi,
I notice, for example,
-rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm
while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel
packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Hi,
I notice, for example,
-rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm
while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel
packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each other.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 05:37:28PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
That is how the new scheme was designed. If libelf0-devel and
libelf1-devel conflict then the name libelf-devel should have been kept.
(Of course there are some internal problems with that, in case both
libelf versions are in
Hi,
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 05:37:28PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
That is how the new scheme was designed. If libelf0-devel and
libelf1-devel conflict then the name libelf-devel should have been kept.
(Of course there are some internal
On Oct 4 2007 17:25, Stephan Kulow wrote:
I notice, for example,
-rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm
while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel
packages that cannot reasonably be installed alongside each other.
Think of
On Oct 4 2007 17:44, Stephan Kulow wrote:
libelf-devel conflicts with libelf0-devel. Where is your point?
Ah ok, I did not see libelf-devel since I was looking for
lib*[0-9]-devel*.rpm. Ok, I try again, with a better package example.
But not all packages follow the curl scheme, e.g.
Am Donnerstag 04 Oktober 2007 schrieb Jan Engelhardt:
On Oct 4 2007 17:25, Stephan Kulow wrote:
I notice, for example,
-rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02
libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm
while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel
packages that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Hi,
I notice, for example,
-rw-r--r-- 1 455 5200 66727 Sep 22 00:02 libelf0-devel-0.8.9-17.i586.rpm
while I agree with the new naming scheme (libelf0), I do not for -devel
packages that cannot reasonably be
On Oct 2 2007 21:38, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Hi,
with lbuild-10.3, the following oddity happens:
keeping kernel-bigsmp-2.6.22.9-ccj54
keeping kernel-default-2.6.22.9-ccj54
installing kernel-regular-2.6.22.9-ccj54
[...]
keeping kernel-xen-2.6.22.9-ccj54
keeping kernel-xenpae-2.6.22.9-ccj54
[...]
10 matches
Mail list logo