On 05/27/2010 11:12 AM, Stefan Bauer wrote:
Am 27.05.2010 11:05, Rene Mayrhofer schrieb:
We could also simply add a mutual Conflicts, as there seems to be no reason
to
have both racoon and openswan installed. Actually, quite a few years ago
(back
in freeswan days...) it was decided
Am 31.05.2010 10:27, Rene Mayrhofer schrieb:
On 05/27/2010 11:12 AM, Stefan Bauer wrote:
Am 27.05.2010 11:05, Rene Mayrhofer schrieb:
We could also simply add a mutual Conflicts, as there seems to be no reason
to
have both racoon and openswan installed. Actually, quite a few years ago
Package: openswan,racoon
Version: openswan/1:2.6.25+dfsg-1
Version: racoon/1:0.7.3-6
Severity: serious
User: trei...@debian.org
Usertags: edos-file-overwrite
Date: 2010-05-26
Architecture: amd64
Distribution: sid
Hi,
automatic installation tests of packages that share a file and at the
same
Am 27.05.2010 09:04, Ralf Treinen schrieb:
This is a serious bug as it makes installation fail, and violates
sections 7.6.1 and 10.1 of the policy. An optimal solution would
consist in only one of the packages installing that file, and renaming
or removing the file in the other package.
On Thursday 27 May 2010 10:24:54 Stefan Bauer wrote:
thank you for your report. Do you really think, removing the manpage
in one package might be clever? As both packages are using the same
function under the hood, both packages need to have an appropriate
manpage for this. Both packages
Am 27.05.2010 11:05, Rene Mayrhofer schrieb:
We could also simply add a mutual Conflicts, as there seems to be no reason
to
have both racoon and openswan installed. Actually, quite a few years ago
(back
in freeswan days...) it was decided between all IPsec-ish package maintainers
to
Hi,
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:24:54AM +0200, Stefan Bauer wrote:
thank you for your report. Do you really think, removing the manpage
in one package might be clever? As both packages are using the same
function under the hood, both packages need to have an appropriate
manpage for this. Both
7 matches
Mail list logo
