Re: Once again: libc6 packages compatibility etc...
> > suggestion :
> > we can drop the altdev and libc5 support in 2.1, at least the
> > development stuff. if a new major version of a library comes out, we
> > should also drop the support, but not before 2.0 is released.
> The more this goes on, the more I think the best thing to do would have
> been to just clean out hamm completely and only let libc6 packages
> be uploaded.
> We could still do this, I suppose with very little impact on hamm.
> The big problem is with upgrades from earlier versions.
Do you mean clean out hamm of libc5 libraries too?
Then I can see other problems:
- You cannot run netscape any more (or any other "commercial" binary
without source that we don't
- Upgrades are _really_ difficult, you will have to upgrade
most/all of base in one go, otherwise it will break.
- Users have even bugged me for libc5 versions of libg++27-dev,
and some got really pissed when I (many moons ago) said I didn'
know whether I was ever going to provide them. Not even
providing libc5 dynamical libraries will make them even more
Now we've done nearly all of the libraries libc5/libc6 compat style,
I think we shouldn't go back any more. We should (and I am anyway)
be prowd of what we've done. (And, thank those who designed this
libc5/6 system. I think it's great, although admittedly more work).
joost witteveen, email@example.com
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .