On 06/19/2015 02:00 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:> therefore, Inverse packages *must* be borked, if they will not cleanly > upgrade standard distro packages. > > Rowlandthanks, Rowland . . . I sent an e-mail detailing my problem to Inverse. I'll include your experience here (nicely) thx also to Louis for his suggestions
On 19/06/15 19:20, Steve Ankeny wrote:> On 06/19/2015 02:00 PM, Rowland Penny wrote: >> therefore, Inverse packages *must* be borked, if they will not >> cleanly upgrade standard distro packages. >> >> Rowland > > thanks, Rowland . . . > > I sent an e-mail detailing my problem to Inverse. I'll include your > experience here (nicely)Yes I noticed, I also receive mail from their mailing list Rowland> > thx also to Louis for his suggestions > >
On 06/19/2015 02:49 PM, Rowland Penny wrote:> On 19/06/15 19:20, Steve Ankeny wrote: >> On 06/19/2015 02:00 PM, Rowland Penny wrote: >>> therefore, Inverse packages *must* be borked, if they will not >>> cleanly upgrade standard distro packages. >>> >>> Rowland >> >> thanks, Rowland . . . >> >> I sent an e-mail detailing my problem to Inverse. I'll include your >> experience here (nicely) > > Yes I noticed, I also receive mail from their mailing list > > Rowland > >> >> thx also to Louis for his suggestions >> >> >just a followup -- It was indeed an issue with the Inverse postinst script (and was resolved by "hacking" the deb myself) thx again to Rowland and Louis