On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote: > Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 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. > > True, so they can stay with bo for now.
The problem is that there are people that want updated packages from hamm without wanting to recompile them. I don't consider it an acceptable answer to tell them that it can't be done without tearing apart their current development environment. > > Okay there is a different utmp format. Lets try to list the packages from > > libc6 that care about utmp and would actually mangle it if running with > > the old libc5 utmp format: > > > > login > > telnetd (maybe, i think it hands off to login) > > sshd > > rlogind > > last (well, it will show the mangled data) > > who/w (ditto) > > ftpd > > There's probably a few more, eg screen. Okay, I admit I may have missed a few. > > The problem is that there are many people who don't have a problem with > > the minor issue of possible utmp corruption (which will only happen if you > > install something that is compiled with libc6 and does utmp stuff), but > > have a MAJOR PROBLEM being FORCED to ABANDON THEIR OLD DEVELOPMENT > > ENVIRONMENT. > > Again, please desist from a flaming style of reply. I've found that it occasionally shakes out the woodwork and provokes replies (look at all the flamewars on USENET). I wasn't getting any reaction from a more rational arguement, so unfortunatly I had to stoop to shouting. > 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. I think it is unreasonable to expect people to trash their current setup just to run a few updated programs. I agree that utmp corruption can be a concern, especially on machines with multiple users. However, it becomes significantly less a concern with small one-person systems which are likely to be a majority of those who want to upgrade "just a few things". I want to provide them with a route that doesn't involve replacing every development package or recompiling the updated software. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
