On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 00:20:11 +0100 (CET)
Christiaan Welvaart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 01:09, Buchan Milne wrote:
>
>
> If one mixes packages from various releases, and something does not work,
> the dependencies are not correct. Epoch should not be used to fix binary
> in
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 09:46:16 +0100, Gwenole Beauchesne wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
>
>> Example: to allow upgrading & downgrading mozilla/galeon/etc., all moz
>> libraries that are used by other packages must be in a separate package
>
> Indeed Mozilla must still be a
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
> Example: to allow upgrading & downgrading mozilla/galeon/etc., all moz
> libraries that are used by other packages must be in a separate package
Indeed Mozilla must still be a correctly libified package, at least for
biarch installation. And, for
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Leon Brooks wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 01:09, Buchan Milne wrote:
If one mixes packages from various releases, and something does not work,
the dependencies are not correct. Epoch should not be used to fix binary
incompatibilities.
Example: to allow upgrading & downgrading
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 01:09, Buchan Milne wrote:
>>> This would need
>>> some rpm changes, so that a package built on 9.2 would have an
>>> epoch of 92 and one build on 10.0 would have epoch 100. But this
>>> would be a problem with packages that already has an epoch, as you
>>> can use only integer
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 01:09, Buchan Milne wrote:
>> This would need
>> some rpm changes, so that a package built on 9.2 would have an
>> epoch of 92 and one build on 10.0 would have epoch 100. But this
>> would be a problem with packages that already has an epoch, as you
>> can use only integer number
