Re: Summary of Package Overlaps
- To: email@example.com (Juan Cespedes)
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Summary of Package Overlaps
- From: email@example.com (Richard Braakman)
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
- Message-id: <m0xGM8M-001NLaC@night>
- In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970928185623.363Efirstname.lastname@example.org> from Juan Cespedes at "Sep 28, 97 07:04:06 pm"
Juan Cespedes wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > This version of the summary is based on
> > hamm/Contents from 1997-09-22/17:25 (GMT)
> > hamm/main/Packages from 1997-09-22/12:48 (GMT)
> > hamm/non-free/Packages from 1997-09-19/12:55 (GMT)
> > hamm/contrib/Packages from 1997-09-11/12:30 (GMT)
> I don't think this is enough; it should be checked against
> packages in `bo' too.
Good point. I will do that. I'll see if I can get the scripts for
it running today; otherwise it'll have to be next week. And once
I add bo I can just as easily add rex. (I still have it on CD)
I'm afraid the general problem of comparing every package against
every previous version of every other package is intractable. I hope
dpkg's handling of overlaps when --force-overwrite is dropped will be
somewhat similar to its handling of explicit conflicts. (Which is
the safest way of handling overlaps).
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .