Re: Lastest G-Wrap for Sarge
Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
>> g-wrap (1.9.6-1) unstable; urgency=high
>>
>> * New upstream version. This nevertheless means no real changes against
>> 1.9.5-2, since we already had all of the upstream fixes applied.
>> * Ship g-wrap-config in libgwrap-runtime0-dev and make it conflict with
>> libgwrapguile-dev.
>> * Wrote manpage for g-wrap-config.
>> * Fixed wrong conflict of g-wrap with non-existing gwrapguile-dev,
>> should be with libgwrapguile-dev, hence increased urgency.
>
> This last change would seem to be RC as well, but I don't find any files
> that conflict between the sarge versions of libgwrapguile-dev and g-wrap, or
> between the woody version of libgwrapguile-dev and the sarge version of
> g-wrap. Can you explain what this conflict is for?
>
You are right. There are no file conflicts between libgwrapguile-dev
1.3.4-13 and libgwrap-runtime0-dev 1.9.5-2; that conflict was
apparently a packaging artefact. Sorry for bothering you.
Rotty
--
Andreas Rottmann | Rotty@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at
http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
v2sw7MYChw5pr5OFma7u7Lw2m5g/l7Di6e6t5BSb7en6g3/5HZa2Xs6MSr1/2p7 hackerkey.com
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?
Reply to: