Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected

To: debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
From: jmarant@nerim.net (Jérôme Marant)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:49:13 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 878yyp1swm.fsf@marant.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20021216224227.GB28431@iliana> (Sven Luther's message of "Mon, 16 Dec 2002 23:42:27 +0100")
References: <[🔎] 87y96p3dhk.fsf@marant.org> <[🔎] 20021216210237.GA25382@iliana> <[🔎] 87pts13btm.fsf@marant.org> <[🔎] 87el8h1we0.dlv@wanadoo.fr> <[🔎] 20021216214640.GA25696@iliana> <[🔎] 20021216222833.GD32716@lordsoth.takhisis.org> <[🔎] 20021216224227.GB28431@iliana>

Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:


>> BTW, why you used dist-upgrade, Jerome and Remi?
>
> Because it is easier, and they did not read the documentation ?

No, because it is the bleeeeeeeeding edge! For D4 Sup4h 1337 H4x0rZ!

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org

Reply to:

References:
- Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
  - From: jmarant@nerim.net (Jérôme Marant)
- Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
  - From: Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
- Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
  - From: jmarant@nerim.net (Jérôme Marant)
- Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
  - From: Remi VANICAT <vanicat@labri.u-bordeaux.fr>
- Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
  - From: Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
- Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
  - From: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>
- Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
  - From: Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: Accepted camlimages 2.10-5 (i386 source all)
Next by Date: Re: Possible bug ?
Previous by thread: Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
Next by thread: Re: Latest dist-upgrade didn't behave as expected
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread