On Mon, 2005-03-28 at 22:31 -0500, Keith Browne wrote: > Package: t1lib-dev > Version: 1.3.1-9 > Section: oldlibs > Priority: optional > Architecture: i386 > Conflicts: t1lib0-dev, t1lib-dev (<< 1.3.1-9), t1lib1-dev, libt1-dev > Replaces: t1lib0-dev, t1lib0 (>> 0.7.1-5), t1lib1-dev > Provides: t1lib1-dev > > What I'm wondering is why there's also a conflict with t1lib-dev (<< > 1.3.1-9)? Isn't it implicitly the case that installing one version of a > binary package of a given name excludes other versions? > No idea, that conflict makes absolutely no sense to me. You can't have two versions of a package installed simultaneously. The only thing it would do would be to cause t1lib-dev to be removed before the new version is unpacked, rather than unpacking the new version over the top -- have no idea why you'd want to do that though. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part