On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 08:29, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:15:12 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> dpkg --remove libc6 # removing libc6:i386 and libc6:amd64
>> ?
>
>> Users will "love" you for this, given that it is completely inconsistent with
>> what front-ends will underst
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 20:55, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 09:19:55AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:14:15 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> > Beside that i wonder which --force flag this should be, given that it
>> > removes packages while it wa
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 09:19:55AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:14:15 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > Beside that i wonder which --force flag this should be, given that it
> > removes packages while it was requested to install others.
> > In a way, the old architectur
Hi,
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I saw you merged fixes for almost everything but your fix for the trigger
> part is not complete enough. I pushed again a new patch in
> pu/multiarch/for-guillem (it's also attached).
>
> The fact that the pkgbin pointer is stored in the filetrigg
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011, Guillem Jover wrote:
> For package name input, taking into account the output restrictions,
> pkgname cannot mean pkgname:native whenever that could be ambiguous
> (M-A: same). The only options are then to either consider it pkgname:*
> or to fail. I still think pkgname == pkgn
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> So this change will break other stuff. You need to carefully review other
> parts of the code with this in mind.
>
> Given this is a change in the underlying specifications used during my
> development, it obviously breaks my test suite.
FWIW the atta
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 14:37:36 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> > You talk only about output, but the title is "I/O" and i think it's unlikely
> > that dpkg has a different understanding of pkgname in output vs input,
> > so, you want to tell us that
Hi Guillem,
I noticed the change below in the latest version of your branch.
This effectively removes the cross-grading failure that Sven Joachim
reported but I'm concerned about the implications.
Most of the upgrade code has been written under the assumption that
an upgrade always works with the
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 18:14:15 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> Beside that i wonder which --force flag this should be, given that it
> removes packages while it was requested to install others.
> In a way, the old architecture is disappearing, but there are no
> Replaces (not even implicit) in p
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 16:55:41 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:17:15PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > > With dpkg from your pu/multiarch/full branch, this does not work:
> > > | # dpkg -i /var/cache/apt/archives/libc-bin_2.13-2
10 matches
Mail list logo
