On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Welton wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, 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. > > Isn't this the whole point of compiling hamm packages for bo? Ie, the > bo-updates, bo-current or whatever directory that we have been > discussing for some time?
My goal is to make doing this basically unnecessary, freeing people to spend time actually finishing hamm. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
