Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> 'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
> >
> >If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
> >choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
> >as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
> >mainly bo would give me a stable system. No one is forcing them to do
> >anything, however it is not unreasonable to expect them to upgrade some
> >packages, including replacing -dev with -altdev, if they want to have the
> >benefits of some newer packages.
>
> No, I think we can fix the packages to support both utmp compatibility
> and easier upgradeability.
>
> Why can't we do the following:
>
> In both bo-updates and hamm:
> libc5: No conflicts, no depends (predepends on ldso, of course)
> (solves the problem of not being able to upgrade easily)
>
> In hamm:
> libc6: Conflicts: libc5 (<=5.4.23-6)
> (solves the problem of utmp corruption)
>
> Always:
> libc*-dev: Provides: libc-dev; Conflicts libc-dev
>
> I think that these two changes fix the problems. Does anyone
> disagree? Agree?
This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version
that can be used with libc5-dev. This is the problem I'm arguing against
right now.
--
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: