On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 01:58:09AM +0100, Bj?rn Stenberg wrote:
> > There it claims: "Updating ginac makes 1 packages uninstallable on alpha:
> > ginac". Huh?!? Now it's talking about uninstallable source packages!?!
> Yeah, that's a feature.
Well, you should be saying "...makes binary packages from 1 source(s)
uninstallable on alpha, namely: ginac". It's not meaningful to talk
about uninstallable source packages, and what you've got seems especially
likely to be confusing if a source package builds multiple binary packages
including one with the same name as the source package.
> The list of uninstallable packages can grow very long when all
> binaries are listed, making it hard to see which source packages are
> having problems. Someone asked me to filter the list and just show the
> source packages, so that's what the script currently does.
You could also consider saying:
makes the following packages uninstallable: foo, bar, baz,
(and 5 other packages from metavar source package), blah, ...
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature