At 16:08 -0500 1998-12-06, Raul Miller wrote:
At 14:08 -0500 1998-12-06, Dale Scheetz wrote:>libstdc++2.8 (=2.90.29-1), libstdc++2.9 (=2.91.58), libstdc++2.9 (=2.91.59) > >Does this work for everyone?I think it's the right choice. Joel Klecker <jk@espy.org> wrote:What's wrong with libstdc++2.9 (<< 2.91.59-1), libstdc++2.8 (<< 2.90.29-2)?BTW, only i386 needs these conflicts, the other architectures aren't affected.This forces unnecessary upgrades, which can play hell with keeping a server working properly.
OK, I see it now, I do notice an unnecessary conflict though, the libstdc++2.9 (=2.91.59) one, 2.91.59-{1,2} are not broken by libc6 >= 2.0.7u-6.
-- Joel Klecker (aka Espy) <URL:http://web.espy.org/> <URL:mailto:jk@espy.org> <URL:mailto:espy@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux PowerPC -- <URL:http://www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/>