[Fwd: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 580 - trunk/debian]

2003-09-30 Thread Michel Dänzer
The list was broken, trying again. -- Earthling Michel Dnzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer ---BeginMessage--- On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:01, Branden Robinson wrote: Look, it's really simple. Agreed.

Re: [Fwd: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 580 - trunk/debian]

2003-09-30 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:06:57PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: As I said before: If the utah-glx packages stop providing the virtual packages, they must either move the conflicting files or C/R the virtual packages. There is no realistic scenario where the relations on the virtual packages

[Fwd: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 580 - trunk/debian]

2003-09-30 Thread Michel Dänzer
The list was broken, trying again. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer \ Debian (powerpc), XFree86 and DRI developer Software libre enthusiast \ http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer ---BeginMessage--- On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 05:01, Branden Robinson wrote: Look, it's really simple. Agreed.

Re: [Fwd: Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 580 - trunk/debian]

2003-09-30 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:06:57PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: As I said before: If the utah-glx packages stop providing the virtual packages, they must either move the conflicting files or C/R the virtual packages. There is no realistic scenario where the relations on the virtual packages