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

libc6 too unstable ?

I note from the `Upcoming Debian Releases' posting:
 August 31, 1997 All uploaded packages must depend on libc6.

However, my experience with attempting to install even libc6 runtime
functionality on a libc5-based system was that everything broke
horribly due to incompatible libc versions ending up dynamically
linked into the same binary.  I was going to say see my bug report
number XYZ, but it seems to have gotten lost !  Unfortunately I
submitted it too long ago for my mail logs so I can't track it.  I'll
resubmit it, under the title `libc6 transition and Perl breakage'.

Has this issue been fixed yet ?  I think it is unreasonable to expect
all maintainers to upload libc6 packages when the libc6 environment is
too unstable to use.

Furthermore, I trust that a libc5 upload into unstable, replacing an
older or more buggy libc5 package, will not be rejected merely because
of its libc5-ness ?


PS: I presume you mean `must not depend on libc5' rather than `must
depend on libc6'.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: