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 > 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.
Isn't this the whole point of compiling hamm packages for bo? Ie, the bo-updates, bo-current or whatever directory that we have been discussing for some time? Ciao, -- David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
