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

Re: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...

>>>>> "JC" == Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> writes:

  JC> --84ND8YJRMFlzkrP4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

  JC> On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 10:13:24PM -0600, Larry 'Daffy' Daffner
  JC> wrote:
  >> It really would be nice in the future if fair warning was given
  >> before major changes such as this were made that had the
  >> potential to break a wide variety of things, so that people can
  >> decide if the risk level is appropriate for their system. For the
  >> most part, unstable has been relatively safe for a non-critcal
  >> system, where it's desired that the system remain mostly
  >> useful. Then a whack on the nose like this comes along. It would
  >> be highly unfortunate if the only testing that unstable got was
  >> on systems that only see use as test systems, but making a change
  >> like this without warning appears to be the first salvo in making
  >> that an unfortunate reality.

  JC> Fair warning WAS given.

Depends on what you consider "fair warning". There was discussion of
potato containing glibc2.1 but no flag that it was happening, and if
you're paranoid hold off a bit. It was also stated in the debian-devel
discussion that the upgrade would not break any binaries compiled with
glibc2.0, which has shown to be false, and is even documented in the
FAQ shipped with the new libc package. The breakages so far are
mostly minor, depending on what's relevant to you. I'm just saying it
could have been handled more gracefully.

  Larry Daffner        |  Linux: Unleash the workstation in your PC!
  vizzie@airmail.net / http://web2.airmail.net/vizzie/
	The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful
	theory by an ugly fact.  --Thomas Henry Huxley

Reply to: