RE: Questions...
[Julian Morcinek] I took a interest in this post as I will be belatedly upgrading my current Debian 1.1 installation (a dream - trouble free for over 2 years!). Just three questions:
1. Are they any major reasons why the new libc version in release 2.0.x (hamm) should be preferred over the libc version on 1.3.x (bo)?
2. What does changing mean (viz a viz hamm)? Does it mean that not all the existing packages have been upgraded for the new libc, and that ugraded packages will 'trickle through' over a period of time? And does this mean frequent visits to the FTP server to download those hard-to-do-without packages?
3. How long does it take, on average - if there is such a thing, for hamm to become bo?
My interest is that of a contented Linux, as opposed to other OS's I administer, administrator. I really don't have to work too hard on my Linux box, and I ain't a Unix/Linux Guru. What now attracts me to Debian Linux is its proven, in my case, low maintainability. Now isn't that a unique selling point?
Joakim Burman wrote:
>
> Hi Debian users,
>
> Some "Newbie" questions...
>
> Is... Debian 1.3=stable=bo?
1.3.x is stable (codename is bo)
> Is... Debian 1.3.x=unstable=hamm?
2.0.x is unstable (means changing not buggy). It is codenamed hamm
> Can I run unstable packages on a bo-kernel?
> Can I run stable packages on a hamm-kernel? (e.g backward-compatible)
The kernel has little to do w/ packages. I run 2.0.33 on a hamm
system. The default hamm kernel is also a bo kernel.
What makes hamm different than bo is the new libc. Most apps are
dynamically linked to this lib. SO bo packages may not work on hamm,
and hamm packages WILL NOT work on bo. For you windows people it is
like two different versions of a DLL.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: