Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)
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.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .