Re: Apt is cool (yay!) - What about bo?
--On Mon, May 4, 1998 6:38 am -0700 "Joel Klecker" <jk@espy.org> wrote:
> At 12:24 +0100 1998-05-04, Jules Bean wrote:
>>The following packages on my system are in bo but not in hamm:
>>
>> --- Obsolete and local packages present on system ---
>> ----- Obsolete/local Required packages -----
>> ------- Obsolete/local Required packages in section base -------
>> *** Req base timezone 7.55-2 <none>
>> ----- Obsolete/local Standard packages -----
>> ------- Obsolete/local Standard packages in section admin -------
>> *** Std admin wg15-locale 2-5 <none>
>> ------- Obsolete/local Standard packages in section libs -------
>> *** Std libs libbfd2.7.0. 2.7.0.9-3 <none>
>
> Those packages are a) superceded (the first two) or b) obsolete (the
last).
>
Cool. I'll kill them.
Should the first two have been "Replaces: "'ed by their successors?
And do we perhaps need a way of marking a package as Obsolete - Default
action purge - in the packages file?
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: