Re: libc6 too unstable ?
On Sep 3, Ian Jackson wrote
> 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'.
I think the libc5->libc6 transition is going relatively smooth. Part of the
"mixed libc versions" problem is that up until very recently, shared libs
weren't themselves linked dynamically against other shared libs. There is a
note about this in the `Upcoming Debian Releases' posting.
What is missing for me is libc6 X libs (RSN), and subsequently libc6 xpm
libs; then I can convert all my packages to libc6.
> 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.
Scott K. Ellis maintains a Debian libc5 to libc6 Mini-HOWTO
(http://www.gate.net/~storm/FAQ/libc5-libc6-Mini-HOWTO.html) which covers
most of the problems (though not a perl problem yet).
> 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 ?
IMO the note is formulated a bit strongly. The intention is more like
"upgrade your packages to libc6 ASAP; only do libc5 ones if libc6 is not
J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may
jdassen@wi.LeidenUniv.nl | not be a better one than the one the blocks
| live in but it'll be a sight more vivid.
| - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .