blob: be57a477f10ed3efcc0eef9ddd4105de6bf3f85a (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20How%20should%20packages%20with%20version%20in%20name%20be%0A%09handled%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C201203261412.04222.anaselli%40linux.it%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="013533.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="013535.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?</H1>
<B>Angelo Naselli</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20How%20should%20packages%20with%20version%20in%20name%20be%0A%09handled%3F&In-Reply-To=%3C201203261412.04222.anaselli%40linux.it%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?">anaselli at linux.it
</A><BR>
<I>Mon Mar 26 14:12:01 CEST 2012</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="013533.html">[Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="013535.html">[Mageia-dev] KDE configuration file regressions
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#13544">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#13544">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#13544">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#13544">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>lunedì 26 marzo 2012 alle 01:57, David W. Hodgins ha scritto:
><i> The following packages have to be removed for others to be upgraded:
</I>><i> libchamplain-gtk0.8_1-0.8.3-1.mga1.i586
</I>><i> (due to missing libclutter-gtk-0.10.so.0)
</I>><i> libchamplain0.8_1-0.8.3-1.mga1.i586
</I>><i> (due to missing libclutter-glx-1.0.so.0)
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Am I correct in thinking that adding an obsoletes of
</I>><i> libchamplain-gtk0.8_1 to libchamplain-gtk0.12_0 would
</I>><i> get urpmi to remove it without generating the above
</I>><i> message?
</I>hmm i'm not sure of that, but here it seems libclutter-glx & co
has been removed adn that cuases a remove of libchamplain0.8 & co.
Otherwise it would have left on the system.
><i> If so, should I be opening bug reports for each of these
</I>><i> cases, or should it be left as is, and simply tell the
</I>><i> users to go ahead and answer yes to the prompt?
</I>Obsoleting it should be against our library policy iirc, an old
lib can stay on the system so that you can execute programs
needing libfoo1 and other needing libfoo2 for instance.
Angelo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/mageia-dev/attachments/20120326/d93166a3/attachment.asc>
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="013533.html">[Mageia-dev] How should packages with version in name be handled?
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="013535.html">[Mageia-dev] KDE configuration file regressions
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#13544">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#13544">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#13544">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#13544">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
