Re: libc6-dev conflict
I know this is against the netiquette, but you ask on the list, you keep the
answers on the list, PLEASE.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 03:53:58PM +0000, Lance Tagliapietra wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
> Thanks for replying to my inquiry. My information is different than
> what you provided. When I installed Woody, I did tell the installer
> that I wanted the security updates when I installed Woody.
>
> My Apt sources list:
> #deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main non-free contrib
> #deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main non-free contrib
> #deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free
> #deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free
>
> #deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free
>
> deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main non-free contrib
> deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main non-free contrib
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free
> deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free
>
> deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free
>
> ***end***
>
> My tools don't tell me that a 2.3.* is available, just 2.2.*. Are you
> running stuff from testing? For example:
[...]
Of course I am running testing, plus unstable in the build chroots. My
sources.list has this (plus a little more for sources and incoming)
deb http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/debian/ woody main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ woody/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/debian/ testing main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ testing/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free
> Where did you get the 2.3.* packages. I asked the question, as usually
> updates don't break things. Now weather it is a bug that the prerequisites
> to a security update are in stable or not I'm not sure. But that is what
> I wanted to point out.
If you think something is wrong with the arrangement of the libc6 packages,
I think you should report a bug against ftp.d.o. On my box everything looks
ok, ie libc6 and libc6-dev 2.2.5-11.5 are both available from
http://security.debian.org woody/updates/main
Maybe you should replace "stable" by "woody", but stable is a symlink to
woody on security.d.o, so that should not matter.
> I do a bit of compiling on this system,
> so I did pull in the developers packages (C/C++).
> How did you pick up the 2.3.*?
If you add testing to your sources.list, you should get all packages from
testing (some might require a dist-upgrade though). You can also configure
apt to make packages from testing and unstable available, but not install
them by default. See pinning in apt/preferences and Default-Release in
apt.conf. Then you can install packages from testing by adding /testing after
the package name. Very nice if you just want to upgrade a couple of
packages.
Christian
Reply to: