Hello,
I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports.
This is a list of the packages:
avr-libc:
Conflicts on avr-libc ( )
ct
Hi,
> I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
> as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
> be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports.
>
> This is a list of the packages:
> [...]
> unison:
> Conflicts on
also sprach Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
> I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
> as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
> be removed, but I prefer to ask here before filing useless bug reports.
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060724 23:28]:
> also sprach Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
> > I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
> > as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
> > be removed,
also sprach Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.24.2253 +0100]:
> Well, what is the reason to conflict on itself? It makes sense for
> conflict on provides for virtual packages, but on the real package?
An upgrade is the same as removing the old and installing the new
package, so other than
Il giorno lun, 24/07/2006 alle 23.22 +0200, Jan C. Nordholz ha scritto:
> > unison:
> > Conflicts on unison (<< 2.9.1-3)
>
> I guess this is meant to prevent older versions of unison and unison2.9.1
> (which Provides: unison) from being installed together (the same holds
> for unison-gtk).
If u
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> also sprach Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.24.2204 +0100]:
>> I've noticed that some packages conflict or depend on themself. As far
>> as I know, this makes no sense and the dependency (of conflict) should
>> be removed, but I prefe
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> exim4-config:
> Conflicts on exim4-config ( )
This is both a virtual and a real package. (There is just one packags
in Debian providing it.)
cu andreas
--
The 'Galactic Cleaning' policy undertaken by Emperor Zhark is a personal
vision of the
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Il giorno lun, 24/07/2006 alle 23.22 +0100, martin f krafft ha scritto:
>> An upgrade is the same as removing the old and installing the new
>> package, so other than maintainer script invocations (which will
>> differ if the old package was removed
Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
> So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
> a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
> arguing that that case will never occur?
Conflicts on virtual packages assu
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
> > So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
> > a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
> >
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
>> So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles as
>> a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people just
>> arguing that that case
Il giorno mer, 26/07/2006 alle 16.48 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow ha
scritto:
> > Conflicts on virtual packages assure that two real packages providing
> > the virtual one can't be installed togheter, so let's say:
> >
> > A: provides D; conflicts D
> > B: provides D; conflicts D
> >
> > It is not p
Il giorno gio, 27/07/2006 alle 00.22 +1000, Hamish Moffatt ha scritto:
> Now extend for more than two packages. Should each package list every
> other, require every package to be updated when another is added?
>
> Instead they can all provide and conflict a common virtual package.
It is ok to co
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:22:54 +1000, Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 01:17:30PM +0200, Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
>> A: nothing;
>> B: provides A; conflicts A
>>
>> ... which produces the same result, because you can't install both A
>> and B because B conflicts w
Fabio Tranchitella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Il giorno mar, 25/07/2006 alle 18.10 -0700, Russ Allbery ha scritto:
>> So, are people sure this is not useful even if the package name doubles
>> as a virtual package? It seems to me like it would be. Or are people
>> just arguing that that case
On mer, 26 lug 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> However, I don't see how the self-conflicts *hurts* anything, and some
> people are currently using this technique, probably because it's easier to
> remember to always have the Conflits. So what are we gaining by adding a
> check for this and making peop
17 matches
Mail list logo
