0.5.15lorg3.1 loses epochs on rh7.3/rh8.0/rh9 (promoteepoch?)

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Aug 8 03:43:59 PDT 2006

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 01:26:05PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > We've tried every possible combination already (see the variants and the 
> > failures in the thread above): it's simply not possible to support systems 
> > requiring promoteepoch without untampered dependency information. Sorry 
> > folks, end of story.
> Oh and FYI, no amount of argumentation is going to change my mind over the 
> above statement. Somebody want to prove me wrong, send patches.

No, I withdraw everything and place myself on your side of the
fence. :)
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.laiskiainen.org/pipermail/apt-rpm-laiskiainen.org/attachments/20060808/191d11e1/attachment-0003.pgp>

More information about the Apt-Rpm mailing list