Hi,
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 02:22:41PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Nevertheless, please always CC the original submitter when replyng or
> closing bug reports, otherwise they do not get your email.
Mhhh, my interpretation of the documentation is different:
| The person closing the bug, the pe
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:22:27AM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:11:11AM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > download and install them. apt-get does the same thing. TBH, I don't
> > see why aptitude should work here where apt-get doesn't, unless they
> > actu
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 09:59:45PM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:32:04AM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > > > In all cases it seems unlikely to affect aptitude. If it is capable to
> > > > handle dependencies for prerm's in
Hi Daniel,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 08:32:04AM -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > > In all cases it seems unlikely to affect aptitude. If it is capable to
> > > handle dependencies for prerm's in the circular loop case, it is most
> > > probably capable to do the same in simpler cases like this one.
On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 01:09:56AM -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> severity 410695 important
> thanks
>
> On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:31:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > > As the recommended upgrade path from sarge->etch is aptitude rather than
> > > apt, the m
severity 410695 important
thanks
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:31:33AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > As the recommended upgrade path from sarge->etch is aptitude rather than
> > apt, the main reason I've left this as 'serious' is concern that the cause
> > is common to both apt-get and aptitude
Le samedi 03 mars 2007 à 20:33 -0800, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 07:49:53PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > I have already encountered similar problems in the past, with GConf, and
> > they were triggered by a circular dependency.
>
> > It seems that APT is unable to dea
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 07:49:53PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I have already encountered similar problems in the past, with GConf, and
> they were triggered by a circular dependency.
> It seems that APT is unable to deal with such dependencies correctly, as
> it removes packages depending on
I have already encountered similar problems in the past, with GConf, and
they were triggered by a circular dependency.
It seems that APT is unable to deal with such dependencies correctly, as
it removes packages depending on each other in random order (which is
fair) but can also remove one of the
reassign 410695 apt
thanks
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:06:09AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 05:42:31PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:53:53PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Package: upgrade-reports
> > > Severity: serious
> > > The piupart
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 05:42:31PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:53:53PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Package: upgrade-reports
> > Severity: serious
>
> > The piuparts run below:
>
> > /usr/sbin/piuparts -a -d sarge -d etch gnupg xawtv k3d-dev libcnumx0-dev
> > mo
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:53:53PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Package: upgrade-reports
> Severity: serious
> The piuparts run below:
> /usr/sbin/piuparts -a -d sarge -d etch gnupg xawtv k3d-dev libcnumx0-dev
> mozilla-opensc xmms-coverviewer makeself koffice-i18n-nn kview libmcardplugin
> g
Package: upgrade-reports
Severity: serious
The piuparts run below:
/usr/sbin/piuparts -a -d sarge -d etch gnupg xawtv k3d-dev libcnumx0-dev
mozilla-opensc xmms-coverviewer makeself koffice-i18n-nn kview libmcardplugin
gij-3.4 gimp-dimage-color libast2-dev libaal-dev caudium-dev libcvsservice0
13 matches
Mail list logo
