On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote: > 'Martin Mitchell wrote:' > > > >If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two > >choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption > >as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with > >mainly bo would give me a stable system. No one is forcing them to do > >anything, however it is not unreasonable to expect them to upgrade some > >packages, including replacing -dev with -altdev, if they want to have the > >benefits of some newer packages. > > No, I think we can fix the packages to support both utmp compatibility > and easier upgradeability. > > Why can't we do the following: > > In both bo-updates and hamm: > libc5: No conflicts, no depends (predepends on ldso, of course) > (solves the problem of not being able to upgrade easily) > > In hamm: > libc6: Conflicts: libc5 (<=5.4.23-6) > (solves the problem of utmp corruption) > > Always: > libc*-dev: Provides: libc-dev; Conflicts libc-dev > > I think that these two changes fix the problems. Does anyone > disagree? Agree?
This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version that can be used with libc5-dev. This is the problem I'm arguing against right now. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
