Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org (04/07/2010):
Yeah, but I've also witnessed (and reported) several of those for
shared libraries on SONAME bump.
Me too, thanks (for jumping in quicker than I).
Also had cases where maintainers didn't want to investigate a given
situation (common binary names
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes:
Tobias Frost t...@frost.de writes:
Looking at #262257, as an exampple, there are packages which declares
conflicts for whatever reason. However, the reason is NOT, that thec
packages could not co-existent on the same system (For the example,
retchmail
Hi!
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 13:28:26 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Tobias Frost t...@frost.de writes:
Looking at #262257, as an exampple, there are packages which declares
conflicts for whatever reason. However, the reason is NOT, that thec
packages could not co-existent on the same system (For
* Russ Allbery r...@debian.org, 2010-07-03, 13:28:
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -4778,6 +4778,15 @@ Build-Depends: foo [linux-any], bar [any-i386], baz
[!linux-any]
/p
p
+ Neither ttBreaks/tt nor ttConflicts/tt should be used
+ unless two packages
Tobias Frost t...@frost.de writes:
Looking at #262257, as an exampple, there are packages which declares
conflicts for whatever reason. However, the reason is NOT, that thec
packages could not co-existent on the same system (For the example,
retchmail could be also installed with fetchmail --
5 matches
Mail list logo
