Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > > 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.
> The problem is that libc5-dev doesn't exist in hamm. Hamm has
> libc5-altdev instead. This forces people who want to compile libc5 stuff
> into the altgcc/lib*-altdev mode, requiring the mass removal and
> installation of a whole set of development packages. I'm against forcing
> people into that just to install "a couple of packages" from hamm.
Didn't I reply to your reply to the proposal that there would come a hamm
libc5-dev? I believe you agreed with that proposal in other messages. And
though I am not at all an expert on this, I think that this would have
been the right solution, especially if you had started this discussion
about six months ago, when hamm just started to be developed:
bo: libc5-dev, depends on bo-libc5, provides and conflicts with libc-dev
hamm: libc6, conflicts with bo-libc5
hamm: libc6-dev, depends on hamm-libc6, provides and conflicts with libc-dev
hamm: libc5, different (higher) version from bo with modifications needed
to work together with libc6
hamm: libc5-dev, depends on hamm-libc5, provides and conflicts with libc-dev
hamm: libc5-altdev, depends on hamm-libc5, conflicts with bo-libc5-dev and
hamm-libc6-dev, provides (probably) libc5-dev
This would make the upgrade path easier, IMHO: first upgrade libc5 and
libc5-dev (and ldso, I think), then install libc6 and other packages.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .