Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken
On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Scott Ellis <storm@gate.net> writes:
>
> > Installing libc5 from hamm forces you to abandon your old libc5
> > development system since it CONFLICTS (correctly) with libc5-dev. Not
> > everyone is going that route yet.
>
> True, so they can stay with bo for now.
The problem is that there are people that want updated packages from hamm
without wanting to recompile them. I don't consider it an acceptable
answer to tell them that it can't be done without tearing apart their
current development environment.
> > Okay there is a different utmp format. Lets try to list the packages from
> > libc6 that care about utmp and would actually mangle it if running with
> > the old libc5 utmp format:
> >
> > login
> > telnetd (maybe, i think it hands off to login)
> > sshd
> > rlogind
> > last (well, it will show the mangled data)
> > who/w (ditto)
> > ftpd
>
> There's probably a few more, eg screen.
Okay, I admit I may have missed a few.
> > The problem is that there are many people who don't have a problem with
> > the minor issue of possible utmp corruption (which will only happen if you
> > install something that is compiled with libc6 and does utmp stuff), but
> > have a MAJOR PROBLEM being FORCED to ABANDON THEIR OLD DEVELOPMENT
> > ENVIRONMENT.
>
> Again, please desist from a flaming style of reply.
I've found that it occasionally shakes out the woodwork and provokes
replies (look at all the flamewars on USENET). I wasn't getting any
reaction from a more rational arguement, so unfortunatly I had to stoop to
shouting.
> 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.
I think it is unreasonable to expect people to trash their current setup
just to run a few updated programs. I agree that utmp corruption can be a
concern, especially on machines with multiple users. However, it becomes
significantly less a concern with small one-person systems which are
likely to be a majority of those who want to upgrade "just a few things".
I want to provide them with a route that doesn't involve replacing every
development package or recompiling the updated software.
--
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: