Re: downgrading libc6 ?
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 23:12:06 +0000, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:21:28PM +0000, Pigeon wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:58:18 -0800 (PST), "nate"
>> <debian-user@aphroland.org> wrote:
>> >if libc6 is the ONLY thing he installed it may be possible to force
>> >downgrade. one of my friends installed the unstable of libc6 version
>> >on a potato system about 8 months ago because he thought he could do
>> >this to run the new mailman. of course many things broke.
>>
>> Yeah. This is a PITA. Want a new package? Sure, but you need a new C
>> library. But what about all my other packages? They'll all break,
>> you'll have to get new versions.
>
>(a) You could build the newer version from source.
That's what I generally do :-)
>(b) In practice the unstable libc6 won't usually actually break all that
>much, at least not in such a way that getting newer versions of other
>packages will help. (I speak as the guy who's getting all the bug
>reports about apropos segfaulting lately under glibc 2.3.1.) There's a
>reason why libdb1-compat exists: that reason is to *avoid* breakage when
>upgrading just the libc6 from woody to unstable.
OK; there's more of a difference between slink & woody, which is my
situation, so there's a problem if I want something that wasn't in
slink. A search for a local source of woody ISOs is in progress.
>> C'mon. This is Linux, not Windoze. There must be some way to install
>> BOTH libraries and tell the dynamic linker which one goes with which
>> package.
>
>This is OK when the library's soname differs, but changing the libc's
>soname is a major exercise for a binary distribution like Debian. glibc
>upstream have resolved never to change the libc's soname again.
Ahhh... I sense a hack coming on... if I can be bothered to set up
another box that I don't mind breaking when my hacked ld crashes. A
set of woody isos would probably sort me out more safely. :-)
Cheers
Pigeon
Reply to: