Moved to debian-devel 'Scott Ellis wrote:' > >On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote: > >> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > > Huh? The upgrade path is quite clear: install a newer libc5 (5.4.33-7) >> > > from hamm, then you may install libc6. >> > >> > Maybe we can fix this by making libc6 pre-depend on libc5 (>=5.4.33-7)? >> > This would mean we always have a libc5 present which is not very nice, >> > but it would make the upgrade more foolproof. >> >> No, I think this would be highly undesirable for those who want to purge >> libc5 entirely. Libc6 should instead Conflict with libc5 (<=5.4.33-6). > >Now that's about the STUPIDEST suggestion I've heard yet. Are we TRYING >to make it impossible to run libc6 stuff on a mostly bo system? The only >conflict is the utmp format problem, and that is MINOR to many people.
Actually, I think Martin is correct. In order to prevent CDROM based 1.3.1 users from corrupting their utmp, libc6 must conflict with older libc5. Modulo my typo (Martin's <= is right, not my <<), I think my other post suggests the best solution. Of course, upgrading will need to involve upgrading libc5 before installing libc6 for the first time. But this is acceptable to me. The conflict line tells me to find a newer version. But libc5's conflict with libc6 IS totally broken wrt upgrades (it is both untrue and uninformative). -- Christopher J. Fearnley | Linux/Internet Consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Design Science Revolutionary http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf | Explorer in Universe ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf | "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
