(splitting of from #766758 as it is of topic for the RC bug)
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 06:24:16PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> And w/o wanting to get tiresome with this, take into account that
> frontends that use any of the dpkg --force-* options as normal course
> of action, will most probably pr
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:28:07AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > I dislike bug-pingpong, but in this case I have to move it back to dpkg
> > as we can't change apt to make upgrades work (at least it was never
> > allowed in the past, so I doubt it is an option now) and its a behaviour
> > change
Hi,
Am Sonntag, den 23.11.2014, 11:13 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
> Hence my question to those in the know (hence CC’ing debian-dpkg):
> How do I make sure that ghc-doc’s trigger is not run until all of
> ghc-doc’s dependencies (and their dependencies) are installed (not
> necessarily configu
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 14.11.2014, 14:49 +0100 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
> We might have to add some pre-depends somewhere. Is anyone volunteering
> to look into this issue?
I take that as a no.
So here is my analysis:
ghc-doc’s trigger runs haddock. Haddock requires libffi6. For some
reason, apt
4 matches
Mail list logo
