Re: Problems installing Woody from Linux/m68k
On Sun, 2003-02-23 at 21:31, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op zo 23-02-2003, om 18:01 schreef Kars de Jong:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> >
> > I tried installing Woody to a new partition from my existing Linux/m68k
> > installation (home brewn), using debootstrap as described in the
> > installation guide.
> > I quickly ran into a problem though: glibc symbol versions.
> >
> > I have an old glibc version installed (glibc 2.1.3) and apparently
> > debootstrap requires at least version 2.3:
> >
> > bash-2.03# debootstrap --arch m68k woody /mnt/debinst http://ftp.belnet.be/debian
> > I: Retrieving http://ftp.belnet.be/debian/dists/woody/Release
> > I: Validating /mnt/debinst/var/lib/apt/lists/debootstrap.invalid_dists_woody_Release
> > I: Retrieving http://ftp.belnet.be/debian/dists/woody/main/binary-m68k/Packages.gz
> > I: Validating /mnt/debinst/var/lib/apt/lists/debootstrap.invalid_dists_woody_main_binary-m68k_Packages.gz
> > /usr/lib/debootstrap/pkgdetails: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.3' not found (required by /usr/lib/debootstrap/pkgdetails)
> > bash-2.03#
> >
> > Isn't it possible to build debootstrap using an older glibc version? Now
> > I'm forced to use a different installation method...
> >
> > I installed debootstrap_0.1.17.17_m68k.deb by the way.
>
> That's the unstable version, I presume?
>
> You'd have to install the unstable glibc if you'd want to do that.
> Wouldn't advice that, though.
I suppose I could try an older debootstrap.
> An easier solution is to make sure there's a deb-src line in your
> /etc/apt/sources.list that points to unstable, and run the following
> chain of commands:
>
> apt-get update; apt-get install build-essential; apt-get build-dep
> debootstrap; apt-get -b source debootstrap; dpkg -i debootstrap_0*deb
>
> This should download the unstable sources for debootstrap, compile them,
> and install them. After that, you should no longer have any problems
> running debootstrap.
Yes, that would work if I was installing from a Debian system, however,
I'm not. I could of course build it by hand.
A binary that works would obviously be more convenient ;-)
Kind regards,
Kars.
Reply to: