On 11 Dec 1997, Guy Maor wrote: > "Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm sick of trying to find a useful workaround for people who just > > want to install a few packages from hamm without upgrading the whole > > thing. > > There isn't one. I assumed you, as libc5-to-libc6 maintainer, knew > that.
Well, there is one. It involves downgrading libc5 to 5.4.33-3 from my ftp site and putting it on hold. This is not, however, a very elegant solution. > Yes, it is theoretically possible to make libc5/libc5-dev, > libc-6/libc6-altdev packages, all using the old utmp format (among > other things), but I don't see the point in doubling development > effort for the few people who want to straddle the fence. Either stay > on bo or upgrade to hamm. Not asking for libc6-altdev or libc6 using the libc5 utmp format. Just for a libc5 that doesn't conflict with libc6 or libc5-dev > I'll be making a bo-unstable distribution this weekend for anybody who > wants to upload libc5 versions of their packages. That'll hopefully > take away some of the impetus from this discussion. > > > | libc5-5.4.33-3 | OK | OK | What we USED to have in bo > > That was before we had a libc5 with libc6 format utmp. It's > impossible now. Why is it so impossible? Just don't apply the libc6-utmp patches to libc5. Maybe I'm missing something totally obvious here, but if so I don't see it.~ -- Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.gate.net/~storm/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
