Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tags 684702 + pending
Bug #684702 [fglrx-legacy-driver] fglrx-legacy-driver dispalay a AMD Testing
use only watermark on the bottom right corner
Added tag(s) pending.
found 682574 live-tools/3.0.3-1
Bug #682574 {Done: Daniel Baumann
Hi,
Guillem Jover wrote:
The main issue I have with this request is that the upstream triplet just
seems wrong, as it encodes part of the ABI in the vendor field. That's
AFAIR, from reading the thread back then.
For dpkg tools the vendor is irrelevant, and having to take it into
account
clone 678848 -1
reassign -1 libarpack2 3.1.1-2
retitle -1 libarpack2: please add Breaks: octave3.2
thanks
After digging a bit more into this octave upgrade problem, I found a
workaround: libarpack2 needs to add
Breaks: octave3.2
There is already a similar conflict in libblas3 (#677399).
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
clone 678848 -1
Bug #678848 [dpkg] liblapack3: octave has upgrade problems: liblapack.so.3gf:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Bug #671711 [dpkg] monodoc-browser: fails to upgrade from 'testing'
Failed to clone 678848:
unmerge 678848
clone 678848 -1
retitle 671711 dpkg: runs trigger processing even if depedencies are not
satisfied
merge 671711 678848
reassign -1 libarpack2 3.1.1-2
retitle -1 libarpack2: please add Breaks: octave3.2
thanks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
unmerge 678848
Bug #678848 [dpkg] liblapack3: octave has upgrade problems: liblapack.so.3gf:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Bug #671711 [dpkg] monodoc-browser: fails to upgrade from 'testing'
Disconnected #678848 from
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
forcemerge 671711 678848
Bug #671711 [dpkg] dpkg: runs trigger processing even if depedencies are not
satisfied
Bug #678848 [dpkg] liblapack3: octave has upgrade problems: liblapack.so.3gf:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.4.3
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
when an MA: same package contains a conffile, re-installing it causes dpkg to
error out, complaining that the content of the conffile differs between the
architectures - even though it does not.
To reproduce (on current testing):
Hi!
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 20:45:08 +0200, Ralf Jung wrote:
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.4.3
Severity: normal
when an MA: same package contains a conffile, re-installing it causes dpkg to
error out, complaining that the content of the conffile differs between the
architectures - even though
Control: found -1 dpkg/1.16.2
Control: severity -1 serious
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 22:50:28 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 20:45:08 +0200, Ralf Jung wrote:
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.4.3
Severity: normal
when an MA: same package contains a conffile, re-installing it
Processing control commands:
found -1 dpkg/1.16.2
Bug #684776 [dpkg] dpkg incorrectly complains about conffile contents being
different for MA packages
Marked as found in versions dpkg/1.16.2.
severity -1 serious
Bug #684776 [dpkg] dpkg incorrectly complains about conffile contents being
11 matches
Mail list logo
