Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken
Chris Fearnley <cjf@netaxs.com> writes:
> 'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
> >
> >The 5.4.33-6 package is _not_ broken, and should not be removed.
> >It rightly conflicts with libc6 due to the different utmp format between
> >libc5 and libc6. The 5.4.33-7 package in hamm has modified utmp routines
> >so it can coexist with libc6.
>
> Is breaking easy upgradeability really better than corrupting utmp?
Yes, it means the system should work properly at all stages of the upgrade.
Martin.
--
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: