Re: Updating Snort Signatures In Stable ?
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:43:48AM +0000, Nick Boyce wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:52:06 -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> [re: installing the snort binary from unstable]
> >... And I prefer not to install unstable glibc on my stable systems.
> Yeah - I thought there was a big problem with installing any unstable
> *binary* on a stable box, for exactly that reason.
Yep. But there's often no need, since many (most?) source packages
testing/unstable can be compiled on stable.
> I too don't want the unstable glibc - surely it means you have to replace
> just about every other binary on the system ?
Programs built with glibc x.y will run on glibc x.y+d, though the reverse is
not generally true. So, upgrading glibc does not typically present problems
with existing programs. There are exceptions, of course, for example the
recent glibc 2.3 transition problems (mostly due to programs inappropriately
using internal glibc interfaces), a good reason not to upgrade glibc