[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apt-get upgrade dies badly ...

On Wed 03 Nov 1999, Christopher C Chimelis wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999, Andrew D Lenharth wrote:
> > On a different note, is there a minimally size lib you could produce for
> > the base disks?  I think I am going to start working on those since no one
> > else is.
> I could always strip them, but there will have to be another libc package
> installed to the hard drive afterward to fix the static linking problems.

I don't think that's a problem; somehow force the version of the libc
on the base system to be lower than the one in potato at the time of
release; it'll automatically be replaced then.

Maybe a specific runtime-ONLY libc package is called for? And if you
install the -dev package, the non-stripped library gets installed?

One general note on the base system (not alpha specific): I think it
would be good if ALL base system packages would be "refreshed" from
the archive once the package install phase is started; that way the
base system could be stripped of more things, e.g. /usr/doc (or was
it /usr/share/doc :-).

If Andrew needs any help testing the base floppies / cd install
procedure, I have a cd recorder/rewriter and a spare UDB. Soon I'm
also expecting a shiny new 9 gig disk for my XLT, so then I'll be
able to test that as well.

Paul Slootman

Reply to: