Re: libc6

[Scott Ellis <storm@gate.net>]

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 1997, Scott Ellis wrote:
> 
> > Someone messed up with the libc5 in the latest stable.  It conflicts with
> > libc6 for no reason, if you install libc6 with --force-conflicts it should
> > work fine. 
> This isn't strictly speaking true. Libc6 only conflicts with the libc5 in
> bo. This is because there is a difference in the format of utmp/wtmp lock
> files between the old libc5 and the new libc6. The version of libc5 in
> hamm is patched to do the lock file format the same way that libc6 does
> them. This seems more than trivial to me since forcing libc6 install will
> corrupt utmp/wtmp lock files for one or the other process. Seems to me
> this would be good to point out in the HOWTO. There really is a good
> reason to upgrade to libc5 in unstable. 

OTOH, utmp/wtmp corruption doesn't matter to some people, there are only a
few programs that care.  Yes the libc5 in stable has a different utmp/wtmp
format, but other than that it works for people without them being forced 
into the altdev environment which can be confusing.

> >            You could also install the latest libc5 from unstable instead
> > (better alternative if you intend to upgrade completely to unstable), but
> > that is likely to force you down the altgcc/libc5-altdev path if you want
> > to be able to compile libc5 stuff.

> This shouldn't make any difference. Installing libc6-dev will force you
> down that path though.

The problem is that the libc5 from unstable conflicts with libc5-dev
(needing libc5-altdev instead).  That's as good a way as any to force you
into altgcc/altdev usage.

-- 
Scott K. Ellis <storm@gate.net>                 http://www.gate.net/~storm/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .