Re: glibc_2.2.5-9.woody.4.deb is missing
On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 05:55:17PM +0200, Thomas Buhk wrote:
> > locales because the glibc_2.2.5-9.woody.4.deb would be
> > missing. I had a
> hm... no problem this morning on several systems, all work fine with
> 'apt-get update; apt-get upgrade'
But did locales get removed?
There is no glibc deb.
The problem is that locales 2.2.5-9.woody.4 depends on
glibc-2.2.5-9.woody.4, while libc6 2.2.5-9.woody.4 provides
Methinks the naming is getting a bit complicated. Why do we continue
to refer to to the GNU C library as both libc6 and glibc?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com