Re: Bug#15859: libc5 in stable is horribly broken (fwd)
On 11 Dec 1997, Guy Maor wrote:
> "Scott K. Ellis" <storm@gate.net> writes:
>
> > I'm sick of trying to find a useful workaround for people who just
> > want to install a few packages from hamm without upgrading the whole
> > thing.
>
> There isn't one. I assumed you, as libc5-to-libc6 maintainer, knew
> that.
Well, there is one. It involves downgrading libc5 to 5.4.33-3 from my ftp
site and putting it on hold. This is not, however, a very elegant
solution.
> Yes, it is theoretically possible to make libc5/libc5-dev,
> libc-6/libc6-altdev packages, all using the old utmp format (among
> other things), but I don't see the point in doubling development
> effort for the few people who want to straddle the fence. Either stay
> on bo or upgrade to hamm.
Not asking for libc6-altdev or libc6 using the libc5 utmp format. Just
for a libc5 that doesn't conflict with libc6 or libc5-dev
> I'll be making a bo-unstable distribution this weekend for anybody who
> wants to upload libc5 versions of their packages. That'll hopefully
> take away some of the impetus from this discussion.
>
> > | libc5-5.4.33-3 | OK | OK | What we USED to have in bo
>
> That was before we had a libc5 with libc6 format utmp. It's
> impossible now.
Why is it so impossible? Just don't apply the libc6-utmp patches to
libc5. Maybe I'm missing something totally obvious here, but if so I
don't see it.~
--
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
--
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: