Alexander Skwar wrote:
So sprach Buchan Milne am 2002-06-23 um 01:21:23 + :
If there is a valid reason why a normal user (the rpmdrake-only-kind) needs this,
fine, but if this is for some application which uses --nodeps or --force or
relocates, I see no reason.
The reason is, that
So sprach Buchan Milne am 2002-06-23 um 01:21:23 + :
If there is a valid reason why a normal user (the rpmdrake-only-kind) needs this,
fine, but if this is for some application which uses --nodeps or --force or
relocates, I see no reason.
The reason is, that it's not possible to upgrade
So sprach David Walser am 2002-06-22 um 16:33:45 -0700 :
Well, vice versa would also have to be true, but
Yes, of course. That's what my spec file does.
what's the advantage of that? I see it as this being
Easier upgrade path in both directions.
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote:
So sprach Alexander Skwar am 2002-06-23 um 00:40:54 +0200 :
time, but shouldn't e.g. samba-server-ldap simply obsolete samba-server?
Attached is a diff to the 2.2.5-2mdk spec, which fixes this.
Alexander Skwar
--
How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english)
--- Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi!
Well, subject says it all: Why do samba-PKG and
samba-PKG-ldap
conflict? Okay, I can see that both cannot be
installed at the same
time, but shouldn't e.g. samba-server-ldap simply
obsolete samba-server?
Well, vice versa would also have
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, subject says it all: Why do samba-PKG and samba-PKG-ldap
conflict?
Because it's too easy to break one smbd when you have two, and there doesn't seem to
be any purpose to make it easy for people to break it.
Okay, I can see that both cannot
