On 2016-04-05 16:27:38 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> This is basically the same as #762932, but with upgrades to experimental
> instead of downgrades, so marking as +wontfix and closing (we already
> have the other bug to explain why it's a +wontfix).
Yes, clearly, about this bug,
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Hi,
2015-08-12 01:46 Vincent Lefevre:
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1+b1
Severity: important
Yesterday, during an upgrade of my Debian/unstable machine with
aptitude via its UI (with the new libstdc++6 in particular),
aptitude upgraded a package (powertop) from
minor corrections:
In that case, you wouldn't have been able to upgrade libstdc++6 while
powertop was not recompiled against it with a binNMU (and 2.8 was
uploaded at some point in september), or powertop would have to be
removed.
2.8 was uploaded in November, not in September, but a binNMU
(2
Hi,
On 2016-03-17 00:10:55 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> With the SolutionCost of "removals", aptitude doesn't take into account
> installing by priorities or non-default releases, it just tries to
> minimise the removals, so seing that it could solve the problem by
> upgrading to
2016-03-17 02:43 Vincent Lefevre:
Hi,
On 2016-03-17 00:10:55 +, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
With the SolutionCost of "removals", aptitude doesn't take into account
installing by priorities or non-default releases, it just tries to
minimise the removals, so seing that it could solve
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.6.11-1+b1
Severity: important
Yesterday, during an upgrade of my Debian/unstable machine with
aptitude via its UI (with the new libstdc++6 in particular),
aptitude upgraded a package (powertop) from unstable to experimental
(see aptitude log in attachment), and I wasn'
6 matches
Mail list logo
