On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:55:01PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:39:14 +0100, > Colin Watson wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 05:04:54AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > > Hmm. 155904 isn't a valid bug anymore - Apache's been recompiled to > > > cope with this. I'll close it now. > > > > I'd been told that the plan was to have libc6 depend on libdb1-compat > > for the next release, which was why I asked. > > I still confuse that 'libc6 depends libdb1-compat' does not affect > any system breakage.
Sorry, I couldn't parse that sentence ... > Is apache's recompilation enough for this issue, or not? In my opinion it isn't enough, since partial upgrades of just libc6 will break the system - and such partial upgrades are quite common when people do something like 'apt-get install dpkg apt' from the new release before doing a full upgrade. (Also, several other packages are affected beyond just apache, and some commercial programs use libdb.so.2 too.) Thanks for listening, -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
