Re: Slink to Potato
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Damir J. Naden wrote:
> I have been in this thread way too long :-), but ... I have to agree
> with Damon's post. And I have been told that glibc2.1 and glibc2.0 are
> binary compatible.
Glibc 2.1 is binary compatible with glibc 2.0. That means that any glibc
2.0 app should work with 2.1 (unless the developer was stupid). It doesn't
mean that any 2.1 apps will work with 2.0, though.
"Socrates is a man" and "All men are mortal". Therefore, "Socrates is
mortal", but not "All men are Socrates" ;)
> But, if you didn't have glibc2.1, _none_ of the potato packages would
> have installed in the first place, because of the missing dependancies
> (if you used dpkg).
Some few could be satisfied, if the package were to be altered to depend
on perl instead of perl5. Or the slink perl package were altered to
provide perl5 as well as perl.
There are a few others that don't depend on libc6 at all, but they aren't
all that common.
> And if upgrading libc6 2.0 to 2.1 is going to be anything like
> upgrading from libc5 to libc6 I shudder at the idea of sitting in
> front of the screen waiting to crash it to the point of no return. Can
> anyone of the Debian management find some time in the near future to
> write up a definitive migration guide (ie. what needs to be updated as
> a very minimum, in which order and such- like the one we had for
> libc5->libc6 thing)?
Although i'm not completely sure, i believe the upgrade is nowhere near as
problematic as the libc5->libc6 upgrade. Unless you upgrade at the same
time a major bug shows itself ;)
- --
finger for PGP public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBN/rNIb7M/9WKZLW5AQHcAAP6Arw3nwRa2LjLRYrnn3eJPmliE61m9pE7
T+NuCX7tF/GNpYJRf+UPYGu7g65vp1iDyJXbY7ASeXa8TtKJqLUee6pFqzYWFLaU
Wbx1t9tFDkUBk+U++hmOV8AVX4QKCCGBTkjtOalCKianCj5ShZA1DhQ565V7v0g2
H56s1uHugMQ=
=9y4o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: