On So, 20 Okt 2013, Brad Barnett wrote:
> I view this bug as very high priority. I see more than a decade of
> documentation out there, and of user experience familiar with a process.
>
> A process that changed for code correctness, and for absolutely no other
> reason.
>
> A process than in cha
I view this bug as very high priority. I see more than a decade of
documentation out there, and of user experience familiar with a process.
A process that changed for code correctness, and for absolutely no other
reason.
A process than in changing, broke the existing process.
And when the proc
On Sat, 2013-05-04 at 11:28:25 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Guillem Jover wrote:
> > ... I'm attaching a small tentative patch, on the best place I could
> > find, just in case.
>
> I think it belongs in section "issues.dbk":
>
> Sometimes, changes introduced in a new release have side-e
Guillem Jover wrote:
> ... I'm attaching a small tentative patch, on the best place I could
> find, just in case.
I think it belongs in section "issues.dbk":
Sometimes, changes introduced in a new release have side-effects
we cannot reasonably avoid, [...]
Ideally it should be s
Control: clone -1 release-notes
Control: severity -1 wishlist
Hi!
The bug against dpkg, is about a behavior change that many sysadmins
might be surprised to find, so to avoid that it might make sense to
document in as many places as possible.
Hmm, but I guess it might be too late for this now, a
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 07:30:48PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> What I'm planning to do to try to improve the situation is:
>
> * Document the change in the man page in master targetting 1.17.x
> (perhaps 1.16.x too).
> * Probably add a single warning at the end of the --set-selections
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:30:48 +0200
Guillem Jover wrote:
> What I'm planning to do to try to improve the situation is:
>
> * Document the change in the man page in master targetting 1.17.x
> (perhaps 1.16.x too).
> * Probably add a single warning at the end of the --set-selections
>
Hi,
[ I've trimmed out all the vitriol... ]
On Sun, 2013-04-21 at 11:44:46 -0400, Brad Barnett wrote:
> I might add, that I attempted to use Guillem's suggestion in that email.
Just to make sure, only one of those is needed, not all combined.
> I get borked at the whole:
>
> apt-cache dumpav
I might add, that I attempted to use Guillem's suggestion in that email.
I get borked at the whole:
apt-cache dumpavail && dpkg --update-avail / --merge-avail
How on earth is that even supposed to work? Doesn't seem to function
here...
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:41:35 -0400
Brad Barnett wrot
Uh, yeah... great.
Ok, so we have a regression that is "OK", because it is based on whether
a behaviour is technically correct. I've seen this bug for months and
months, but thought it was a well known bug that just wasn't resolved.
In fact, I didn't even look for bug reports. I didn't even lo
Hi
> Guillem's reply in
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2012/03/msg00067.html
I agree that there is a reasoning behind it, but if this feature as documented
far and wide is removed, please:
* add a warning to the NEWS
* fix the man page! And mention ways to achieve the same
Thanks
Norbe
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The impact was perfectly known. I was also concerned by the change but
> Guillem did not want to change his mind.
>
> See https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2012/03/msg00065.html and
> Guillem's reply in
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2012/03
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > It might look harmless, but we do *NOT* want to release Debian
> > with a dpkg that is broken with respect to all the descriptions
> > floating around how to clone a system.
>
> I agree that this is a problem, but I cannot convince myself it bre
severity 703092 important
quit
Hi,
Norbert Preining wrote:
> [Subject: setting this to critical]
Please keep in mind that these appear as emails in a crowded inbox,
where a subject line can provide valuable context.
> It might look harmless, but we do *NOT* want to release Debian
> with a dpkg
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.9
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainers,
I recently noticed that the workflow to install in a basic box the
list of extra packages present in other more complete box seems to
no longer work
full-box# dpkg --get-selections > desired-selections.txt
basic-box# dpkg --get-se
15 matches
Mail list logo
