On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, David Gaudine wrote:
> for at least a year. After installing e2fsprogsg, I'm left with the
> following "Available Required packages"; the very existence of this
> section makes me nervous.
I should add that I'm assuming that this is a transi
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Yes: e2fsprogs used to contain shared libs, on which dump and quota
> depend. Thus, e2fsprogs was assumed to be a package with libc5 libs,
> and I could not keep the name, without breaking dump and quota on a
> hamm upgrade.
>
> I thought that, e2fsprogs
On 30 Nov 1997, Greg Stark wrote:
> I know i should install a new e2fsprogs, obviously. I was just suggesting we
> should find some way to avoid the default action being to deinstall packages
> that aren't really being completely replaced. I'm not sure what better to do
> though.
In this partic
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, David Gaudine wrote:
> It wasn't just renamed, it was split into e2fsprogsg and e2fslibsg.
I meant to add "I think". The above is what I see from the descriptions
that dselect shows me. dselect also lists the old package as
"required base", wh
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> BTW, is there a particular reason that e2fsprogs got renamed to
> e2fsprogsg? This seems to be the biggest chance to completely screw over
> someone's system in all of Debian now.
It wasn't just renamed, it was split into e2fsprogsg and e2fslibsg.
(
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
> >
> > We've got be be a little more careful with the Replaces header. I just
> > installed the libc6 version of comerr, and dpkg helpfully deinstalled
> > e2fsprogs.
>
> That's perfectly normal if you previously had e2fsprogs
6 matches
Mail list logo
