On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 10:58:03PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > In practice, most of the reverse-depends of octave2.9 have versioned
> > dependencies on octave2.9, so most of these will refuse to accept octave3.0
> > as a replacement. And octave3.0 also *conflicts* with octave2.9, so they'
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-28 17:29]:
> The octave3.0 package in unstable has the following provides line:
>
> Provides: octave, octave2.9
>
> I don't see any possible way that this can be correct. Either octave3.0 is
> 100% compatible with octave2.9, and the source/binary
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-29 07:21]:
> Well, note that I don't consider removal of the existing octave2.9 packages
> to clear it up. The octave3.0 Provides: is still wrong, either because this
> package does not provide identical functionality or because it's proof of a
> grat
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 03:32:27PM +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-28 17:29]:
> > The octave3.0 package in unstable has the following provides line:
> > Provides: octave, octave2.9
> > I don't see any possible way that this can be correct. Eith
* Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-01-28 17:29]:
> Package: octave3.0
> Version: 3.0.0-1
> Severity: serious
> User: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Usertags: origin-ubuntu
>
> Hi,
>
> The octave3.0 package in unstable has the following provides line:
>
> Provides: octave, octave2.9
>
> I don't
5 matches
Mail list logo
