Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Joe Emenaker wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
>
> > Scott Ellis <storm@gate.net> writes:
> >
> > > I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY REASONS WHY UTMP CORRUPTION IS SO EVIL THAT WE
> > > NEED TO MAKE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RUN A FEW LIBC6 PROGRAMS ON BO GO
> > > THROUGH HELL.
> >
> > Say you're an ISP running Debian (bo) on a bunch of machines (and
> > these people do exist).
>
> And I'm one of them. :)
>
> Here's a thought. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this utmp/libc6/libc5
> fiasco is something that applies to all (or almost all) Linux
> distributions, no? (Or is libc6 a Debianism?)
>
> If everybody in the Linux game is migrating to libc6, then what are the
> other piecewise-upgradable distributions (like RedHat) doing to avoid
> ugliness like what we're facing?
They hid their libc6 system until the entire thing worked. I'm not
entirely certain how they handle the upgrade, since I don't have a spare
system to play with redhat at the moment. However, in the past, major
redhat upgrades involved booting to single-user mode.
--
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: