On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 11:08:13AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2012-06-03 10:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >> On 2012-06-02 21:56 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Either we have to make them conflict one with ano
On 2012-06-03 10:39 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On 2012-06-02 21:56 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> >
>> > Either we have to make them conflict one with another (that is
>> > libc0.1-dev and libc6-dev, libc0.3-dev with libc6-dev,
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:10:41AM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2012-06-02 21:56 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:33:19PM +0200, Thibaut Girka wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:02:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >> > Your patch actually also makes libc0.1-d
On 2012-06-02 21:56 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:33:19PM +0200, Thibaut Girka wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:02:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> > Your patch actually also makes libc0.1-dev, libc0.3-dev and libc6.1-dev
>> > m-a: same. You should also check fo
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:33:19PM +0200, Thibaut Girka wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:02:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Your patch actually also makes libc0.1-dev, libc0.3-dev and libc6.1-dev
> > m-a: same. You should also check for files in these packages.
>
> Oh, I didn't know about
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 09:02:54PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Your patch actually also makes libc0.1-dev, libc0.3-dev and libc6.1-dev
> m-a: same. You should also check for files in these packages.
Oh, I didn't know about that.
libc0.1-dev is ok.
libc0.3-dev is ok since it's only available fo
tag 666760 - patch
thanks
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:36:03PM +0200, Thibaut Girka wrote:
> tags 666760 patch
> thanks
>
> Hi,
> I was wondering why libc6-dev wasn't m-a: same, and I've decided to identify
> which files
> are arch-dependent but not in arch-qualified paths.
>
>
> Here is what I'
tags 666760 patch
thanks
Hi,
I was wondering why libc6-dev wasn't m-a: same, and I've decided to identify
which files
are arch-dependent but not in arch-qualified paths.
Here is what I've found using libc6-dev=2.13-32 binary packages from the
archive:
Searching for conflicts across the follow
Package: libc6-dev
Version: 2.13-27
Severity: normal
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
I'd like to install zlib1g-dev:i386 to use zlib in a 32bit program. However,
this is currently blocked by libc6-dev not being Multi-Arch: same, so I can
not install it.
--- System information.
9 matches
Mail list logo
