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 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 version, AFAIK. > > 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 > installation of a whole set of development packages. I'm against forcing > people into that just to install "a couple of packages" from hamm.
Didn't I reply to your reply to the proposal that there would come a hamm libc5-dev? I believe you agreed with that proposal in other messages. And though I am not at all an expert on this, I think that this would have been the right solution, especially if you had started this discussion about six months ago, when hamm just started to be developed: bo: libc5 bo: libc5-dev, depends on bo-libc5, provides and conflicts with libc-dev hamm: libc6, conflicts with bo-libc5 hamm: libc6-dev, depends on hamm-libc6, provides and conflicts with libc-dev hamm: libc5, different (higher) version from bo with modifications needed to work together with libc6 hamm: libc5-dev, depends on hamm-libc5, provides and conflicts with libc-dev hamm: libc5-altdev, depends on hamm-libc5, conflicts with bo-libc5-dev and hamm-libc6-dev, provides (probably) libc5-dev This would make the upgrade path easier, IMHO: first upgrade libc5 and libc5-dev (and ldso, I think), then install libc6 and other packages. Remco -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .