On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org wrote:
On 2013-09-05 11:15, David Kalnischkies wrote:
[ Provides/Replaces up thread ]
The policy defines two uses of Replaces:
[…]
So my simple question is, which combination of relations should that
be that tells a smart
On 06/09/13 10:17, David Kalnischkies wrote:
For example, you made mplayer2 now an upgrade for mplayer.
I am not sure that is what their maintainers/upstreams intend.
(maybe it is, but I am not keen on letting foo2/foo-ng maintainer
decide what is a good upgrade path for foo – that should
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Simon McVittie s...@debian.org wrote:
On 06/09/13 10:17, David Kalnischkies wrote:
For example, you made mplayer2 now an upgrade for mplayer.
I am not sure that is what their maintainers/upstreams intend.
(maybe it is, but I am not keen on letting foo2/foo-ng
On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 03:16:34PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 06/09/13 10:17, David Kalnischkies wrote:
For example, you made mplayer2 now an upgrade for mplayer.
I am not sure that is what their maintainers/upstreams intend.
(maybe it is, but I am not keen on letting foo2/foo-ng
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Now, maybe apt could consider a package a replacement only if pkgA
Replaces/Provides pkgB, *and* pkgB is no longer available. Are there cases
where that would give the wrong result? Is it practical to implement?
Depends
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk wrote:
On 2013-09-04, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Unless apt has gotten smarter recently (which is not out of the question),
no. It's a common misconception that apt will care about Provides/Replaces
for selecting new
On 2013-09-05 11:15, David Kalnischkies wrote:
[ Provides/Replaces up thread ]
The policy defines two uses of Replaces:
[…]
So my simple question is, which combination of relations should that
be that tells a smart package manager to upgrade pkgA to pkgB ?
What about pkgB replacing and
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 4. September 2013, Norbert Preining wrote:
Yes, and? Was the dist-upgrade disturbed?
We are talking about normal systems, that is having telxive or texlive-full
installed. Not pathological cases of only t-l-d installed.
wheezy has:
Package: texlive-lang
Binary:
On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Holger Levsen wrote:
which other binary packages build by texlive-lang do you consider
pathological to use?
I considered the installation of one -lang package by itself without
actual latex package pathological.
Holger, who considers just to build-depend on
On 04/09/13 at 20:52 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Holger Levsen wrote:
which other binary packages build by texlive-lang do you consider
pathological to use?
I considered the installation of one -lang package by itself without
actual latex package pathological.
OK,
clone 709758 -1
reassign -1 src:texlive-lang
retitle -1 Transitional packages for going-away texlive-lang-*
thanks
I'm cloning the original bug report to make a new report for this
issue as described by Lucas:
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: Bug#709758: Replacing a binary package by another
one(was:
On 2013-09-04, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
Unless apt has gotten smarter recently (which is not out of the question),
no. It's a common misconception that apt will care about Provides/Replaces
for selecting new packages on dist-upgrade, but while it seems like a nice
idea, TTBOMK
severity 721838 whishlist
tags 721838 pending
thanks
Norbert
PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094
13 matches
Mail list logo
