On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote: > "Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote: > > > > 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!) > > > > > > I can add this in the next release (due very soon) so let me know ASAP. > > > > Please don't. This will still gratuitously break small upgrades. Adding > > a warning about potential corruption should be sufficient. > > I disagree. The whole integrity of the libc5->libc6 transition will be > broken by such hacks, and will keep Debian 2.0 unstable forever if we > resort to this.
If libc6 conflicts with every libc5 that can be installed with libc5-dev, you've ruined every chance I have of providing a useful workaround to people who want libc6 and to keep libc5-dev. I don't consider using --force in dpkg a viable alternative. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
