Re: glibc 2.1 broke a couple of things.
On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 03:46:04PM +0000, Edward Betts wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar, 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
> > Okay, fine. I've downgraded everything necessary (sysvinit, ldso,
> > libreadline and ncurses). I get the same error. I'm about at the point
> > where I'm ready to nuke the system and reinstall (over ftp, that'll take a
> > while. Sigh). I *MUST* have a working jdk on all my debian systems. It
> > would be real nice if someone could package up a libc6.0 package like is
> > done with the libc5 stuff, so that those people who depend on non-cutting
> > edge software can still participate in the debugging effort.
> Glibc 2 and 2.1 can not co-exist. There is a little known version of Debian
> called `stable' that some people doing real work use, you might find it
> useful. Unstable is often, well, how do I put it, a bit unstable, and hence
> not good for doing real work.
Sigh ... That's fine and I know about stable. And if I had
abundant hardware, I'd have one machine running stable and one machine
running unstable and everything would be happy.
However, I don't, and I try to help in the development and debug
effort, but need to keep the same machines in a happy working condition so
that they can still be usable to do real work.
If the machines on which debian were to be tested on were not used
for real work, how well debugged do you think they'd end up being? Debian
would end up being a toy distribution if that were the case (this isn't a
flame. This is a point of fact).
What are the technical reasons for not being able to keep a glibc
2.1 and glibc 2.0 library on the same system? How was it done with libc5?
I do consider it a bug that upgrading to glibc2.1 do not give any
warning about packages that it broke and that there is not a viable
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion"