Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Welton wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, 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.
>
> Isn't this the whole point of compiling hamm packages for bo? Ie, the
> bo-updates, bo-current or whatever directory that we have been
> discussing for some time?
My goal is to make doing this basically unnecessary, freeing people to
spend time actually finishing hamm.
--
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: