> No. xlib6 should be for libc6 (more long-term solution). Then create an > xlib6-libc5. How we handle the dependencies for this, I don't know. Fix
But then anyone "upgrading" xlib6 (the 6 for x11r6, not libc6!) will end up with a libc6 version; Is that what we want to happen? > > alt-xlib6-dev that replaces and provides xlib6-dev (which alt-libc5 > No, alt-xlib6-dev should _NOT_ conflict/replace/provide xlib6-dev. It God, these names are awful. I'm not sure I have any idea what you meant by that :-) So given the choices of: a) normal-paths libc5-xlib-dev b) alt-paths libc5-xlib-dev c) normal-paths libc6-xlib-dev You could install a+b, or b+c, but no other combination? > > 3) can I drop the a.out-only "dlltools" package now? :-) > No. It is needed to build a.out versions of, e.g. svgalib. Some older > binary-only programs only come in a.out format (Doom, for example) :(. Better make that policy then -- since I'm pretty sure I saw "no a.out support in debian 2.0" go by earlier... Still, dlltools is up to current standards and as long as they hold, we can assume that anyone using dlltools still has libc5 installed. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .