'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.
No, I think we can fix the packages to support both utmp compatibility
and easier upgradeability.
Why can't we do the following:
In both bo-updates and hamm:
libc5: No conflicts, no depends (predepends on ldso, of course)
(solves the problem of not being able to upgrade easily)
In hamm:
libc6: Conflicts: libc5 (<=5.4.23-6)
(solves the problem of utmp corruption)
Always:
libc*-dev: Provides: libc-dev; Conflicts libc-dev
I think that these two changes fix the problems. Does anyone
disagree? Agree?
--
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] .
