Am 03.02.2010 01:39, schrieb Allan McRae:
> I will have a decent look into that patch later, but I still think it is
> a bit of a false sense of security.
>
> e.g readline-6.0 and readline-6.1 both provide libreadline.so.6.
> However, building bash against readline-6.1 and running against
> readli
Finally, this would prevent proper upgrades to partially complete
rebuilds. That is fine for some users who would like such things, but
the people doing and testing a rebuild would have issues. I upgraded
the libpng/libjpeg rebuild packages while there were still several
packages needing to be r
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Nagy Gabor wrote:
>
> Packagers should know what they are doing... Moreover, I can also support
> adding some more sophisticated dependency switches (maybe hidden from
> end-users), if needed. (Personally, I don't like that I can't turn on
> resolvedeps with -d.
I
Am Mittwoch, 3. Februar 2010 10:27:43 schrieb Thomas Bächler:
> I get the feeling that you are desperately looking for reason to not
> implement a feature that is obviously a necesity.
I like the idea of adding sodeps and soprovides. Ideally they should be even
added to the db files so tools coul
