Re: Removing Packages from Hamm (was: Can we upload binaries using libc6 to hamm yet?)
Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com> writes:
> > I don't see the point in doing that. If we have already decided hamm to be
> > libc6-based, all packages, sooner or later, must be re-compiled to use
> > libc6.
> >
> > Brian, after libc6 being installed in unstable, will you report a zillion
> > bugs against all packages requiring a recompile? [ This would also serve
> > as a developer-ping ].
>
> I wonder if it's worth removing _everything_ from binary-(arch) within hamm
> until it gets re-uploaded again. We'd then disallow all packages that
> depend on libc5.
>
> Thoughts?
It might be practical to remove everything, but I think we should only
disallow packages depending on the old libc5 package. We really need
the old shared libs and maybe want to have some kind of new
development libs for backward compatibility.
Nevertheless, I think we should start working on hamm iff bo is
released. There is enough for us to do until then.
Helmut
--
Helmut Geyer Helmut.Geyer@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
public PGP key available : finger geyer@saturn.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: