Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

2005-11-26 Thread Andreas Metzler
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: ( {Upstream-Version}), (= {Upstream-Version}.1). Depends: foo (={Upstream-Version}), foo ( {Upstream-Version}.1) instead should also work without the need for a

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

2005-11-26 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: ( {Upstream-Version}), (= {Upstream-Version}.1). Depends: foo (={Upstream-Version}), foo ( {Upstream-Version}.1)

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

2005-11-26 Thread Adeodato Simó
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [Sat, 26 Nov 2005 08:42:41 -0200]: Yes. It is just a matter of which one you like better. You could also have one depends and one conflicts instead of two conflicts or two depends. Versioned conflicts are said to increase apt's trouble to upgrade from one

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

2005-11-26 Thread Andreas Metzler
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Andreas Metzler wrote: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Meanwhile, I am using this: unversioned depends and two conflicts: ( {Upstream-Version}), (= {Upstream-Version}.1). Depends: foo

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

2005-11-26 Thread Simon Richter
Hi, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh schrieb: We really need another substvar with different semantics. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/09/msg01251.html Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature