'Scott Ellis wrote:'
>
>On 12 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > >Huh? The upgrade path is quite clear: install a newer libc5 (5.4.33-7)
>> > >from hamm, then you may install libc6.
>>
>> This is the correct upgrade path, perhaps the howto needs to be clarified
>> on this point.
>
>Installing libc5 from hamm forces you to abandon your old libc5
>development system since it CONFLICTS (correctly) with libc5-dev. Not
>everyone is going that route yet.
Why should libc5 conflict with libc5-dev??
Would this scheme improve things:
libc5 (stable,unstable): No conflicts, no depends (pre-depends on
ldso, of course)
libc5-altdev: Conflicts: libc5-dev
libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
(Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
with stock 1.3.1 will be able to corrupt utmp in the current scheme
anyway!)
libc6-dev: Conflicts: libc5-dev
(libc6 development conflicts with libc5-dev -- need altdev)
I think this scheme documents" the reality. The current situation is
very unclear (even after Scott's excellent contributions).
If this is done the "howto" document will need to specify that one
MUST upgrade libc5 (from hamm) immediately after the ldso upgrade.
BTW, who is maintaining libc5, libc6? Helmut Geyer is listed but I
remember seeing that he has vanished??
--
Christopher J. Fearnley | Linux/Internet Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Design Science Revolutionary
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Explorer in Universe
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
