On 2012-11-17 15:27, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On 11/17/2012 03:14 PM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/1071000
well, imho first case can be easily fixed by removing unversioned
provides: coreutils-su
and besides, it's broken with rpm4.5 as well:
12:42:30 root[load
On 11/17/2012 03:14 PM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/1071000
well, imho first case can be easily fixed by removing unversioned provides:
coreutils-su
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-l
https://bugs.launchpad.net/pld-linux/+bug/1071000
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
1. tries to uninstall coreutils
rpm-5.4.10-33.x86_64
poldek-0.30-1.rc6.4.x86_64
Installing set #3
Processing dependencies...
fsck-2.21.2-3.x86_64 obsoleted by fsck-2.22.1-1.x86_64
fsck-2.22.1-1.x86_64 marks libblkid-2.22.1-1.x86_64 (cap libblkid =
2.22.1-1)
libblkid-2.21.2-3.x86_64 obsoleted b
On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:17:20 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>>>
>>> We don't have such thing. Feel free to implement (cvs/pld-ftp-admin) but
>>> note
>>> that in needs to be fast (and spee
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 12:17:20 -0400, Jeff Johnson wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
We don't have such thing. Feel free to implement (cvs/pld-ftp-admin)
but note
that in needs to be fast (and speed is the major problem).
Its rather easy to do
rpm -ivh -
On Jun 3, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:
>
> We don't have such thing. Feel free to implement (cvs/pld-ftp-admin) but note
> that in needs to be fast (and speed is the major problem).
>
Its rather easy to do
rpm -ivh --dbpath /somewhere/rpmdb --justdb --nonothing *.rpm
On Friday 03 of June 2011, Caleb Maclennan wrote:
> > "ready" is a place where packages are moved over longer period of time to
> > get kind of package set ready to be moved to "main".
>
> So is there a reason Gnome3 skipped the "ready" tree?
Hm, it was there for some time. It wasn't complete but
> "ready" is a place where packages are moved over longer period of time to get
> kind of package set ready to be moved to "main".
So is there a reason Gnome3 skipped the "ready" tree?
> Because there is no checking in python scripts for that.
Shouldn't there be some kind of test using rpm to ch
On Friday 03 of June 2011, Caleb Maclennan wrote:
> The current zsh package on the main mirror site for TH x86_64 is
> zsh-4.3.12-1.
>
> When I try to upgrade to it from 4.3.11-1 I get something like this:
> > error: zsh-4.3.12-1.x86_64: req libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) not found
>
> The version
The current zsh package on the main mirror site for TH x86_64 is zsh-4.3.12-1.
When I try to upgrade to it from 4.3.11-1 I get something like this:
> error: zsh-4.3.12-1.x86_64: req libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) not found
The version of glibc in the same TH tree is 2.13-6. Only the th-test
tree h
11 matches
Mail list logo