On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote: > > > 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.
Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two packages always had to have the same version, AFAIK. Remco -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
