Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken
Chris Fearnley <email@example.com> writes:
> 'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
> >The 5.4.33-6 package is _not_ broken, and should not be removed.
> >It rightly conflicts with libc6 due to the different utmp format between
> >libc5 and libc6. The 5.4.33-7 package in hamm has modified utmp routines
> >so it can coexist with libc6.
> Is breaking easy upgradeability really better than corrupting utmp?
Yes, it means the system should work properly at all stages of the upgrade.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .