Re: libc6 policy in unstable
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Brian White wrote:
> > > Do we also want to remove all libc5 dependant packages at some point? I
> > > think this would be a good idea since otherwise things are going to get
> > > pretty messed up. We might want to do all three immediately.
> >
> > * all packages should be libc6 when "hamm" is frozen. (later?)
>
> Yes, they should be. When do we remove all the non-libc6 packages, though?
I'm not entirely certain I see why we need to remove libc5 packages from
the system for Debian 2.0. While I agree that the primary packages should
really be glibc, I don't see how a few lib5 packages are going to hurt the
distribution, a.out stuff works fine here too. I can see a program to do
non-maintainer uploads of glibc packages for orphaned packages and so
forth.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| | Your friends will know you better in the |
| Scott K. Ellis | first minute you meet than your acquaintances |
| storm@gate.net | will know you in a thousand years. |
| | -- Illusions |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM6IngaCk2fENdzpVAQH1GwP/Yap2DrDB3N0y0kA++Hn91OtmAI9irR5m
q4i6HCFu4B3uUyBwUEAqwI+PXEyFicWZf0yRohAyXyD0xTFRhuMu0ZRiTYVqdk8Q
k944IdY9QWad5ZDohqJLn8UKIEDfYJojz5QJanp5sFyyvAOdRKL+SbQB64Z2lkib
vVvbkWv4OWk=
=eQA7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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: