'Remco Blaakmeer wrote:'
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
Definitely not! libc5-dev implies that libc5 is the default
compilation environment installed in /usr/include.
Sorry, I must have been half asleep when I wrote the above. libc5-altdev
doesn't have to conflict with either
'Scott K. Ellis wrote:'
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
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)
[...]
This still forces people
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 11:47:50AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
hamm: libc5-altdev, depends on hamm-libc5,
OK.
conflicts with bo-libc5-dev and
hamm-libc6-dev,
Unnecessary.
provides
'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
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
'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
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
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
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:06:07AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
packages always had to have the same
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:06:07AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
David Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So find someone to modify the libc5 in hamm to build both -dev and
-altdev packages. It isn't that hard.
That's really the only workable solution.
David, I do think you ought to add the Conflicts to older versions of
libc5 to libc6. This will prevent
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version
that can be used with libc5-dev.
Would it? What if they would also upgrade
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
The problem is that libc5-dev doesn't exist in hamm. Hamm has
libc5-altdev instead. This forces people who want to compile libc5 stuff
into the altgcc/lib*-altdev mode, requiring the mass removal and
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:37:04AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
So find someone to modify the libc5 in hamm to build both -dev and
-altdev packages. It isn't that hard.
Trust me, if I thought I was competant enough to do so, I would. However,
I don't trust myself not to break such an
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 11:47:50AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
hamm: libc5-altdev, depends on hamm-libc5,
OK.
conflicts with bo-libc5-dev and
hamm-libc6-dev,
Unnecessary.
provides (probably) libc5-dev
Definitely not! libc5-dev
13 matches
Mail list logo
