Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> Actually, I think Martin is correct. In order to prevent CDROM based
> 1.3.1 users from corrupting their utmp, libc6 must conflict with older
> libc5. Modulo my typo (Martin's <= is right, not my <<), I think my
> other post suggests the best solution. Of course, upgrading will need
> to involve upgrading libc5 before installing libc6 for the first
> time. But this is acceptable to me. The conflict line tells me to
> find a newer version. But libc5's conflict with libc6 IS totally
> broken wrt upgrades (it is both untrue and uninformative).
WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY WE'RE CAUSING EVERYONE HEADACHES OVER THE
MINOR ISSUE OF UTMP CORRUPTION!!!!!!!! I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY REASONS WHY
UTMP CORRUPTION IS SO EVIL THAT WE NEED TO MAKE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RUN A
FEW LIBC6 PROGRAMS ON BO GO THROUGH HELL.
(apologies for shouting here, but I'm getting annoyed at "utmp corruption"
being given as the reason for libc5 and libc6 conflicts without a rational
explination why anyone should care. If you don't upgrade anything that
deals with utmp to libc6, you don't have any problems).
--
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: