we are the World's Largest distributor of
direct company news and other business communications materials.
we can broadcast your web site news or your
business, or a new service within your business ( you can add your logo/photo to
your press release ) to every Newspaper, Magazine, Televisio
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Peter Moulder wrote:
> Adam Heath voices what is I believe the natural reading of current
> policy, namely that Depends implies postinst ordering, and consequently
> that dependency cycles aren't allowed.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01392
Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> Please re-read the above paragraph. No-one has claimed that a circular
> dependency is needed.
That's the whole reason for this discussion though..
> They are allowed by dpkg, whereas current policy says that they are not
> allowed, hence giving false confidence
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> > The thread begins at
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01329.html
> > where someone says it would be useful if he could ensure that a
> > particular pair of pac
Title: 검색엔진 아이따따따
Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> The thread begins at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01329.html
> where someone says it would be useful if he could ensure that a
> particular pair of packages' postinst scripts run in a particular order.
I'm not convinced the ci
[Have cc'd some of the people whose postings are referred to. Since they
didn't ask to be cc'd, I've left them out of the Mail-followup-to header;
they can follow debian-policy if they're interested in the subject.]
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:23:54PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> According to
7 matches
Mail list logo
