Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
>
> > 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.
Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
packages always had to have the same version, AFAIK.
Remco
--
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: