At Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:21:35 +0200,
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Sure, I've made the nessecary changes, and -16 is ready for upload:
Cool. Thanks for your working.
sysvinit (2.85-16) unstable; urgency=high
*
At Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:21:35 +0200,
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Sure, I've made the nessecary changes, and -16 is ready for upload:
Cool. Thanks for your working.
sysvinit (2.85-16) unstable; urgency=high
On 2004.04.20 17:36, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:54:34 +0100 (BST),
J.D. Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reread this thread, and I think:
(1) glibc should not depend on initscripts
(2) glibc should not install
On 2004.04.20 17:36, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:54:34 +0100 (BST),
J.D. Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reread this thread, and I think:
(1) glibc should not depend on initscripts
(2) glibc should not install
At Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:54:34 +0100 (BST),
J.D. Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reread this thread, and I think:
(1) glibc should not depend on initscripts
(2) glibc should not install three files (defalt/tmpfs,
At Sun, 18 Apr 2004 10:54:34 +0100 (BST),
J.D. Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reread this thread, and I think:
(1) glibc should not depend on initscripts
(2) glibc should not install three files (defalt/tmpfs,
--- GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reread this thread, and I think:
(1) glibc should not depend on initscripts
(2) glibc should not install three files (defalt/tmpfs,
default/devpts, init.t/mountkernfs)
(3) new initscripts should handle removing mountkernfs,
--- GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I reread this thread, and I think:
(1) glibc should not depend on initscripts
(2) glibc should not install three files (defalt/tmpfs,
default/devpts, init.t/mountkernfs)
(3) new initscripts should handle removing mountkernfs,
At Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:12:07 -0500,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Thomas Hood wrote:
| Your patch shows the trouble you have to go to if you choose not
| to Depend on the new initscripts. Is there some reason why the
| new libc6 should _not_ Depend on the new initscripts?
Indeed, after going to
At Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:12:07 -0500,
Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Thomas Hood wrote:
| Your patch shows the trouble you have to go to if you choose not
| to Depend on the new initscripts. Is there some reason why the
| new libc6 should _not_ Depend on the new initscripts?
Indeed, after going to
severity 230857 critical
merge 230857 238963
thanks
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 22:54, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Because of that it includes /etc/default/devpts and /etc/default/tmpfs
which are also in the libc6 package. initscript Replaces: libc6
and libc6.1.
But that makes 2.3.2.ds1-11
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:30:08AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
Your patch shows the trouble you have to go to if you choose not to
Depend on the new initscripts. Is there some reason why the new libc6
should _not_ Depend on the new initscripts?
I don't think initscripts is intended for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Hood wrote:
| Your patch shows the trouble you have to go to if you choose not
| to Depend on the new initscripts. Is there some reason why the
| new libc6 should _not_ Depend on the new initscripts?
Indeed, after going to the trouble of
13 matches
Mail list logo
