Re: upgrading libc6 from 2.2.5-14.3 to 2.3.1-5 fails on 712
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:41:24AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > Inteesting question. One could install a kernel by hand (not as a
> > > package). Thus a runtime test would probably be more suited.
> > The problem with a runtime test i.e. in the package's pre-install script, is by
> > the time you try it, the libc binaries have already been unpacked and have
> > probably overwritten the older ones.
> Debian preinst scripts are run before the package is unpacked.
> However I looked in libc6's preinst and postinst and couldn't find this
> test at all (2.3.1-5).
Indeed. There should have been... :(
> > 2) if there really is no other way e.g. because recent bug fixes in the pa-risc
> > kernel branch were performed, then the libc6 package should at least depend on
> > some specific kernel-image version (or newer), to prevent disasters.
> > Besides, this is Debian; we have the kernel-package and people should use it.
> > Therefore, if this new libc6 depends upon specific kernels, it should not be a
> > problem to have the package actually mandate that, by having kernel-image-2.4.19
> > or newer as a dependency.
> There's no requirement to user a standard kernel-image package or even
> kernel-package to build the kernel. However, the libc could Conflict
> with kernel < 2.4.19 and that would help at least some percentage of the
That's my idea as well, to prevent disasters at least for those who _do_ use
kernel-packages, their own or those by the Debian Project. :)
"Kas sa tahad mind? - Nej!!! Är du en idiot?!!"