Re: Recompilation to remove dependency on libc6 2.0.7u (Was: Status of Slink (fwd)
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Joey Hess wrote:
> Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> > Not that I know of. Anyone feel like making a script that takes each of
> > these packages and fires off an email to <pkgname>@packages.debian.org?
> > It shouldn't be too hard. Getting the contents of the email correct is
> > the hard part, what exactly do they need to upload a correct package?
>
> Urk, please don't. I don't really want to get 41 emails about this (yes, I
> have 41 packages that evidently need fixing. Sigh.) Send one email to each
> maintainer with a list of their packages.
Deal, I'll spare your email box. We need a script that does this (maybe
even some kind of debian-devel package).
> I haven't followed this thread in depth, I seem to have missed the beginning
> of it - is the problem that packages built with an old libc end up with a
> depdnancy on libc6 (>= 2.0.7u) and they need to be rebuilt with the newer
> libc that has a shlibs file that just has "libc6" in it? And is the only
> reason this rebuild is necessary so that people can upgrade from hamm w/o
> upgrading libc? I just want to get the facts straight before I start a 41
> package recompile.
The best I can say is to check the debian-devel archives. I forget all
the libs you need, but getting the latest of everything would be a good
idea. The problem was the people with the good libs can't run programs
compiled with the bad libs (at least that's how I understood it). The end
up getting some kind of unresolved symbol if they try to run one of those
programs.
Anyone have a better explination/library list?
Brandon
+--- ---+
| Brandon Mitchell * bhmit1@mail.wm.edu * http://bhmit1.home.ml.org/ |
| Sometimes you have to release software with bugs. - MS Recruiter |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-testing-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: