Re: apt-get upgrade dies badly ...

[David Huggins-Daines <dhd@eradicator.org>]

On Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 10:02:08PM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> On Wed 03 Nov 1999, Christopher C Chimelis wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Maybe a specific runtime-ONLY libc package is called for? And if you
> install the -dev package, the non-stripped library gets installed?

Uh, perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't libc.a only present in the
libc6.1-dev package?  So, if static linking is the problem, shouldn't it
suffice to have libc6.1 stripped, and libc6.1-dev and libc6.1-dbg
unstripped?  And isn't this the way it works on all other architectures?

> 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

Since the boot-floppies build process tends to incompletely configure some
packages, I'd tend to agree with you.

On the other hand, if we're just going to reinstall everything, then what's
the point of downloading and installing 20M of base2_2.tgz?

> 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.

Excellent.  I should mention that I'll also be working on CDs (once the
boot-floppies and the base system are actually functional, which they aren't
quite at this point :P) - I have a CD-R on my 164SX at home, and a DS10 at
work with plenty of extra disk space to play  with test installations of
Debian on (and some spare time in which to do so)