On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 10:00:05AM -0800, tom arnall wrote: > On Wednesday 20 December 2006 19:14, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > > > regardless, what is your version of libc6? that's probably the best > > indicator at this point. one of my etch boxes is running > > > > dpkg -l | grep libc6 > > ii libc6 2.3.6.ds1-8 GNU C > > Library: Shared libraries > > ii libc6-dev 2.3.6.ds1-8 GNU C > > Library: Development Libraries and Hea > > ii libc6-i686 2.3.6.ds1-8 GNU C > > Library: Shared libraries [i686 optimi > > > > stable is currently, per packages.debian.org, 2.3.2 > > > > > kloro@debian:~$ dpkg -l |grep libc6 > ii libc6 2.3.6-7 GNU C > Library: Shared libraries > ii libc6-dev 2.3.6-7 GNU C > Library: Development Libraries and Header > kloro@debian:~$ > > > should i have a 'libc6-i686' also? don't know. It got pulled into my system at some point. its libc6 optimized for i686 arch. and pre-depends on libc6, so i assume its okay for my little world here (amd athlon chip). > > i assume this means i'm running 'etch'. yup. so if it were my machine, I'd remove the stable references in sources.list and then put them back in again later when etch is released. you are not running stable, so there is no point in pulling down the archive information. but that' sup to you. its not any harm. like I said though, at some point, you'll want to change etch to stable (after the release) so you don't follow it into oldsable and subsequent oblivion. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature