'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 eith
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.
'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 force
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-d
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
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 remo
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 wou
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
"Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
>
> > "Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > > > libc6: Conflicts: (l
On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> "Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > > > (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell
"Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > > (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
> > >with stock 1.3.
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 the
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 v
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
> >with stock 1.3.1 will be able to corrupt utmp in the current scheme
> >
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:11:37AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Welton wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> > Isn't this the whole point of compiling hamm packages for bo? Ie, the
> > bo-updates, bo-current or whatever director
On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> The problem is that maybe *you* know what packages those are, but most
> users expect to be able to upgrade without major system services
> breaking if dpkg/dselect doesn't indicate that there's a problem.
> Your approach would cause silent failures.
>
> Imag
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY REASONS WHY UTMP CORRUPTION IS SO EVIL THAT WE
> > > NEED TO MAKE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RUN A FEW LIBC6 PROGRAMS ON BO GO
> > > THROUGH H
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Welton wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, 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 wou
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> Would it possible to make a (not altdev):
>
> debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/oldlibs/libc5-dev_5.4.33-7.deb
>
> that conflicts with libc6-dev? And would this solve everyones problem?
> I'm just wondering if the libc5 in this directory doesn
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
On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Installing libc5 from hamm forces you to abandon your old libc5
> > development system since it CONFLICTS (correctly) with libc5-dev. Not
> > everyone is going that route yet.
>
> True, so they can stay 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
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 stay
'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
On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, 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
>
Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Installing libc5 from hamm forces you to abandon your old libc5
> development system since it CONFLICTS (correctly) with libc5-dev. Not
> everyone is going that route yet.
True, so they can stay with bo for now.
> Okay there is a different utmp format.
Question:
Would it possible to make a (not altdev):
debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/oldlibs/libc5-dev_5.4.33-7.deb
that conflicts with libc6-dev? And would this solve everyones problem?
I'm just wondering if the libc5 in this directory doesn't have problems
with the utmp.
Thanks,
Brando
'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
>
>Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Is breaking easy upgradeability really better than corrupting utmp?
>
>Yes, it means the system should work properly at all stages of the upgrade.
Still, the fact that libc5-5.4.33-7 conflicts with libc5-dev means that
I h
Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
> >
> >The 5.4.33-6 package is _not_ broken, and should not be removed.
> >It rightly conflicts with libc6 due to the different utmp format between
> >libc5 and libc6. The 5.4.33-7 package in hamm has modified utmp routines
> >s
On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY REASONS WHY UTMP CORRUPTION IS SO EVIL THAT WE
> > NEED TO MAKE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RUN A FEW LIBC6 PROGRAMS ON BO GO
> > THROUGH HELL.
>
> Say you're an ISP running Debian (bo) on a bunch of
On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> Why should libc5 conflict with libc5-dev??
It doesn't need to. The explicit version dependency in libc5-dev is
sufficient.
> Would this scheme improve things:
>
> libc5 (stable,unstable): No conflicts, no depends (pre-depends on
'Rob Browning wrote:'
>
>Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If you don't upgrade anything that deals with utmp to libc6, you
>> don't have any problems).
>
>The problem is that maybe *you* know what packages those are, but most
>users expect to be able to upgrade without major system servic
Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY REASONS WHY UTMP CORRUPTION IS SO EVIL THAT WE
> NEED TO MAKE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RUN A FEW LIBC6 PROGRAMS ON BO GO
> THROUGH HELL.
Say you're an ISP running Debian (bo) on a bunch of machines (and
these people do exist). Now say you
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> 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
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
'Scott Ellis wrote:'
>
>On 12 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
>
>> Chris Fearnley <[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.
>>
>> This is the correct upgrade path, perhaps the howto nee
On 12 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> Chris Fearnley <[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.
>
> This is the correct upgrade path, perhaps the howto needs to be clarified
> on this po
37 matches
Mail list logo
