Hi,
In my continuing testing of deity I have discovered a number of packages
that had/have a self referencing depends, ie:
Package: mh
Depends: libc5 (>= 5.4.0-0), mh (>= 6.8.4-11), ncurses3.0
>From a bo system it seems libpaper, xpm4.7 and mh (at least) have this
problem. I don&#
On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 11:34:01PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> In my continuing testing of deity I have discovered a number of packages
> that had/have a self referencing depends, ie:
> I just want to be sure that this IS a packaging bug and not something done
> deliberately. I
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 11:34:01PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > In my continuing testing of deity I have discovered a number of packages
> > that had/have a self referencing depends, ie:
>
> > I just want to be sure that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For instance, take "unzip". The "unzip" and "unzip-crypt" (on non-US)
> packages both provide the virtual package "unzip", so that other packages
> can have a "Depends: unzip" (the virtual one), without having to kno
On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 02:46:25PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> BTW: Now that I think of it... Does the fact that unzip-crypt provides
> unzip make unzip to be a virtual package?
Yes. Though other packages can still have "Depends:", "Conflicts:" etc. with
the concrete pkunzip package if there is
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 11:34:01PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > In my continuing testing of deity I have discovered a number of packages
> > that had/have a self referencing depends, ie:
>
> > I just want to be sure that
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 1998 at 11:34:01PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > In my continuing testing of deity I have discovered a number of packages
> > > that had/have
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 02:46:25PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > BTW: Now that I think of it... Does the fact that unzip-crypt provides
> > unzip make unzip to be a virtual package?
>
> Yes. Though other packages can still have "Depends:", "Conflict
The meaning of self-referencing dependencies is as follows:
A (version x) --Depends-> A (no version specified)
A (version x) --Depends-> A (satisfied by x)
A (version x) --Provides-> A (version x)
Useless, but should be allowed and ignored.
A (version x) --Depends-> A (not satisfied by x)
On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The meaning of self-referencing dependencies is as follows:
>
> A (version x) --Depends-> A (no version specified)
> A (version x) --Depends-> A (satisfied by x)
> A (version x) --Provides-> A (version x)
>Useless, but should be allowed and ignored
On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 11:49:46AM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > In my continuing testing of deity I have discovered a number of packages
> > > that had/have a self referencing depends, ie:
> >
> > > I just want to be sure that this IS a pac
On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 11:49:46AM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> Why has "unzip" to "Provide" itself? As "unzip" is a _real_ package, there
> should be no need for a "virtual" package. (Of course, "unzip-crypt" would
> have to Provide: unzip.)
Even if this is uneccessary, I think it would b
12 matches
Mail list logo
