Re: Apt wishlist WAS: Re: crypto patch (OT: ports tree)

2000-04-22 Thread Robert D. Hilliard
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > --revision just sets an epoch, which is rather evil since it will > think your package is newwer then ANY upgraded package unless the > upgraded package has an epoch > yours. The --revision flag in kernel-package only makes an epoch if you explicitl

Re: Apt wishlist WAS: Re: crypto patch (OT: ports tree)

2000-04-22 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Ethan Benson wrote: > > I guess ultimately, what would be best, would be to keep track of the > > sources that you have installed, so that you know when the sources > > have been updated. Or have apt recompile for you. > > well i just don't understand why apt thinks it shou

Re: Apt wishlist WAS: Re: crypto patch (OT: ports tree)

2000-04-22 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 02:02:35AM -0400, Marshal Kar-Cheung Wong wrote: > > "Ethan" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> and if you want to compile them there's always 'apt-get > >> --compile source packagename'. if you haven't used it before > >> here's how it work

Apt wishlist WAS: Re: crypto patch (OT: ports tree)

2000-04-22 Thread Marshal Kar-Cheung Wong
> "Ethan" == Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> and if you want to compile them there's always 'apt-get >> --compile source packagename'. if you haven't used it before >> here's how it works :) > with the annoying side affect of apt insisting on replacing the > l