[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why packages in testing/unstable require the newer shared libraries ?



Boris Toloknov wrote:
> Will my system be broken after upgrading libc6* along with locales,
> tzdata and binutils from testing(lenny) repository ?
It probably won't. Lenny is in freeze for several months now.

> If not then it
> means that other programs ( for example bash ) are able to work with
> libc6 <http://packages.debian.org/lenny/libc6> (2.7-*) instead of libc6
> <http://packages.debian.org/etch/libc6> (2.3.[56]*). On other hand I
> don't think that dash (0.5.4-12) from lenny requires something that is
> absent in libc6 <http://packages.debian.org/etch/libc6> (2.3.[56]*). Why
> in that case dash and most/all of the program packages from testing
> require the newer libraries from testing instead of stable ?
It's part of development process. Developers just cannot test dash with 2.3.5, 2.3.6,
2.4.a-b, 2.5.c-d, 2.6.e-f etc. The main goal is achieve clean upgrade from previous stable
release to next one (e.g. etch -> lenny) and proper working with libraries shipped into
next release without regressions.

> Typically I want to upgrade just some package like gcompris from
> testing. What options do I have ?
> 1) Upgrade the package along with a huge set of libraries it depends on.
> But I don't want to make all my system testing/unstable.
> 2) I can get the source of the newest gcompris, lib*-dev packages,
> compile it and remove the source and lib*-dev. But it takes a lot of
> time. Moreover I can do it but my wife can't and she doesn't understand
> why it takes that much time to just install a newer version of some program.
You wife probably is not administrator of a computer, is she? :)

Other option is looking to backports.org site and search for the newer package versions
compiled for Etch.

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
Ukrainian C++ developer, Debian APT contributor

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: