Re: libc6_2.0.7r-3 considered harmful
firstname.lastname@example.org (Ruud de Rooij) writes:
>Last night, I proposed the suggestion to install the -2 version on
>the debian ftp site so that people would not experience that problem.
>Sure, -2 has its share of problems too but at least it would not have
>lead to numerous people suddenly finding their system unusable after
>they let apt or dselect upgrade their system today. As I said most
>of those people won't even know what it is caused by.
>PS: As of this writing, the libc6 package on master's archive is still the
> -3 version.
I entirely agree. We need a mechanism to back the archive up to the
previous version of a package in an emergency. I think this means:
1) The scripts that install a new package should save the old files
rather than deleting them. For example, we could create a directory
tree starting something like
and move the files there. A cron job could expire them after (say) a
2) As soon as a grave package error comes to light, Guy Maor
<email@example.com> should be notified.
3) Assuming Guy agrees, he should replace the bad package with the
previous version. At the same time, he should send a message to
firstname.lastname@example.org with an eye-catching title like
"EMERGENCY - foopkg reverting to 1.2.3-4", asking mirror admins to at
least delete the bad package. The same message should be copied to
debian-user and (of course) to debian-devel.
Naturally, if the maintainer can get a revised package uploaded before
Guy can do the replacement, then it can be installed instead.
However, the bad package should not be allowed to stay even an extra
Guy, does this make sense? I'm hoping it would not materially increase
- Jim Van Zandt
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org