From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Received: by 10.43.166.5 with SMTP id my5mr25129327icc.28.1432485097046; Sun, 24 May 2015 09:31:37 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: voidlinux@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.140.39.243 with SMTP id v106ls2775370qgv.38.gmail; Sun, 24 May 2015 09:31:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.22.199 with SMTP id 65mr212908qgn.15.1432485096879; Sun, 24 May 2015 09:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 09:31:36 -0700 (PDT) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Stefan_M=C3=BChlinghaus?= To: voidlinux@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <28286178-9cd5-4bab-9bbf-04f44cff9902@googlegroups.com> Subject: inetutils package conflicts? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_209_2143839597.1432485096392" ------=_Part_209_2143839597.1432485096392 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_210_1031477413.1432485096392" ------=_Part_210_1031477413.1432485096392 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Why are there suddenly several package conflicts with inetutils-packages? Some of these packages seem very redundant. Is the inetutils meta-package supposed to completely replace several other packages, incuding but not limited to coreutils and iputils? ------=_Part_210_1031477413.1432485096392 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Why are there suddenly several package conflicts with inetutils-packages? Some of these packages seem very redundant. Is the inetutils meta-package supposed to completely replace several other packages, incuding but not limited to coreutils and iputils?
------=_Part_210_1031477413.1432485096392-- ------=_Part_209_2143839597.1432485096392--