On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 05:39:48AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >What do these have to do with getting GNOME 2.10 in? The last two are > >not in testing at all right now, and I haven't noticed any of these > >three packages listed in the hint output. > Perhaps they don't... But they are dependencies of meta-gnome2, which *does* > show up as broken in the hint output, and I can't see any other reason why it > does. Mmm, right. I hadn't looked at the arch: all packages in the uninstallable list yet. > The alternative is presumably to kick meta-gnome2 out (perfectly reasonable). Yeah, which means the desktop task in testing will be completely broken... That doesn't sound like a great option. I'll go ahead and push these in after all, thanks. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature