Bug#41679: marked as done (www.debian.org: running-kernel-2.2 page points to unstable versions that depend on libc6(>=2.1))
Your message dated 06 Oct 1999 14:20:54 -0400
with message-id <oar9j8mjuh.fsf@burrito.onshore.com>
and subject line www.debian.org: running-kernel-2.2 page points to unstable versions that depend on libc6(>=2.1)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Jul 1999 19:25:13 +0000
Received: (qmail 16869 invoked from network); 20 Jul 1999 19:25:11 -0000
Received: from scribe.cc.purdue.edu (128.210.11.6)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 20 Jul 1999 19:25:11 -0000
Return-Path: <servis@purdue.edu>
Received: from ppp-x9-36.ecn.purdue.edu by scribe.cc.purdue.edu with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:25:03 -0500
Received: from servis by ppp-x9-36.ecn.purdue.edu with local (Exim 2.05 #1 (Debian))
id 116fVf-0006Ls-00; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:25:03 -0500
From: Brian Servis <servis@purdue.edu>
Subject: www.debian.org: running-kernel-2.2 page points to unstable versions that depend on libc6(>=2.1)
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.1.7
Message-Id: <E116fVf-0006Ls-00@ppp-x9-36.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 14:25:03 -0500
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A
The page "Errata: Running Linux 2.2.x in slink" located at
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2 points
directly to unstable packages that are slowly being converted to
libc6(>=2.1). Thus a user can not simply drop them in as replacments
for their current versions. Perhaps it would be better if a small
repository of these required packages could be built against a stock
slink system so a user would not have to try and build them for
themselves.
-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.1
Kernel Version: Linux brian 2.2.10 #2 Mon Jul 19 16:14:58 EST 1999 i686 unknown
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 41679-done) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Oct 1999 18:20:41 +0000
Received: (qmail 5908 invoked from network); 6 Oct 1999 18:20:40 -0000
Received: from arcts2p185.port.net (HELO arroz.fake) (@207.237.111.185)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 6 Oct 1999 18:20:40 -0000
Received: by arroz.fake (Postfix, from userid 421)
id E72B57058; Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:20:54 -0400 (EDT)
Sender: apharris@burrito.onshore.com
To: 41679-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: www.debian.org: running-kernel-2.2 page points to unstable versions that depend on libc6(>=2.1)
From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Date: 06 Oct 1999 14:20:54 -0400
Message-ID: <oar9j8mjuh.fsf@burrito.onshore.com>
Lines: 24
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> The page "Errata: Running Linux 2.2.x in slink" located at
> http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/running-kernel-2.2 points
> directly to unstable packages that are slowly being converted to
> libc6(>=2.1). Thus a user can not simply drop them in as
> replacments for their current versions. Perhaps it would be better
> if a small repository of these required packages could be built
> against a stock slink system so a user would not have to try and
> build them for themselves.
That would indeed be "nice", but the fact is, there is no such
repository available.
The documentation team merely provides the best documentation
available. We cannot change the world. If there *were* such a
repository, then a bug should be filed that we should point to it.
Since there is not, I am closing this bug.
However, I have added a paragraph to the top of the web page in
question which talks about this issue a bit. (May take a few days for
this change to appear).
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: