Re: Stable means not-changing?
On Tue, Sep 23, 1997 at 10:06:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: No, you can have libc4, libc5, and libc6 on the machine simultaneously. These are just run time shared libraries, and do not interfere with each other. There should be only one -dev package at one time. Do not remove libc4 until you are sure there is not program on your machine that depends on libc4. It is my understanding (and experience) that ld.so 1.9, needed for libc6, will not run a.out binaries anyway. hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student, computer science computer systems engineering.3rd year, RMIT. http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [* ] 54% Your train has been cancelled due to defective government at Spring Street.. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 1997 at 10:06:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do not remove libc4 until you are sure there is not program on your machine that depends on libc4. It is my understanding (and experience) that ld.so 1.9, needed for libc6, will not run a.out binaries anyway. Due to popular outcry, ldso still includes support for a.out, although it is unsupported and unmaintained. As far as I know, it works at the moment though. - -- |The mark of your ignorance is the depth of Scott K. Ellis| your belief in injustice and tragedy. [EMAIL PROTECTED]| What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, | the master calls a butterfly. | -- Illusions -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNCsdxaCk2fENdzpVAQFTDQQAhnrpkdvIJLkU72/e7M5dPgr0RdBPhcTo KdZhtVwEVCh7Etzsi0wZoC1r1QKwB0+RXoDvdE3sDxPGeHMSZ4/1oZd+CUyhGR1k p9vgxH/okwsAP8aI4CPW3Gtvguad1RoJ4u+yaZuVRNiEqjKk/nZ0WHyLrHUPf81Q rMskFgxrttI= =I921 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
On Thu, Sep 25, 1997 at 10:28:18PM -0400, Scott K. Ellis wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 1997 at 10:06:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do not remove libc4 until you are sure there is not program on your machine that depends on libc4. It is my understanding (and experience) that ld.so 1.9, needed for libc6, will not run a.out binaries anyway. Due to popular outcry, ldso still includes support for a.out, although it is unsupported and unmaintained. As far as I know, it works at the moment though. I got Exec format errors or similar when I tried it. I may not be running the latest though, but it is 1.9. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Student, computer science computer systems engineering.3rd year, RMIT. http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [* ] 54% Your train has been cancelled due to defective government at Spring Street.. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
According to Scott K. Ellis: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 1997 at 10:06:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Do not remove libc4 until you are sure there is not program on your machine that depends on libc4. It is my understanding (and experience) that ld.so 1.9, needed for libc6, will not run a.out binaries anyway. Due to popular outcry, ldso still includes support for a.out, although it is unsupported and unmaintained. As far as I know, it works at the moment though. I have the old game sasteroids in a.out format. It still works with ldso 1.9.6-2, libc 4.6.27-15, and aout-svgalib 1.2.10-4. kws -- O##OO##O O##O O##O ==The famous SchwebebahnAA==suspension==AA===AA===railway===AA Dr. Karl-Wilhelm Schulte AA AA AA AA Bergische Univ.-GH/HRZ ,__AA__AA___AA_AA___. Gaussstr. 20 | || || || |X| |X| || || || | D-42097 Wuppertal | || || || |X| |X| || || || | Tel 0202/4392807,Fax -2910 |_|| ||___|| |X|_|X| ||___|| ||_| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | |X X| | | | | `==+=+=+=+X===X+=+=+=+==' -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why not not installing libc6 coexisting with libc5, as described by Scott Ellis´ Mini-Howto which is weekly (?) posted on this list. It proved to be painless for me and has bash-2.01. It is a rather small step, making my system in no way unstable. This is surely a good idea. But you can't use dselect for this, you can't tell the testers of linux distributions to install some 'unstable' packages, whatever that means, before judging the power and actuality of debian before they publish. What would you think if we asked the maintainers to have a distribution between stable and unstable, somewhat like current ? It could be stable, but actual. Including libc6 _and_ 5, running the best packages of hamm, but keeping the basics with debian 1.3.1. When using the whole unstable distribution someone has to be a developer to accept having to fiddle around with the small bugs every now and then. But there could be a way to have a slowly improving system which is not always upgraded by hand. What I want to say is that when we don't use the capabilities of dselect together with dftp regularly, its more convenient to buy cd's every half a year. And when that happens, the debian way of installing software is not much better than the redhat or suse way, which would be a pity. Would it be too much work to maintain a current-distribution? -- Lukas Eppler (godot) http://www.fear.ch telnet://soil.fear.ch: talk:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
For the most part, it means non-changing. While it would be nice to
fix each package with a problem, doing so always runs the risk of breaking
other packages on the system. Verifying the integrity of the system as a
Perhaps this has been taken a little too much to heart; I keep
updating my system thinking one or two packages must have had some
fixes (security being my major concern), but nothing's changed. It's
better than having a lot of minor Foo-23.deb -- Foo-24.deb updates,
but gives the impression that stable means abandoned.
E.g. bash-2.0, which was found to be buggy almost immediately
(granted, not with a security issue, but it broke other packages).
Under 1.1 and 1.2 these things were fixed right away, which led me to
think that security issues would be address equally quickly; 1.3.1
makes a person wonder.
Note that I am not actually complaining about 1.3.1, just trying to
point out what it looks like to someone used to frequent stable
updates. For all I know 1.3.1 hasn't changed because, except for
bash, it's perfect. And I'm certainly glad that you're not having us
download a whole new X just for a nitpick change to xdm's login
screen...
Finally, the analogy to kernel development comes to mind; though it's
progressing now, for long periods the broken 2.0.30 kernel saw little
public attention from many key kernel gurus, which puzzled the masses
who were used to Linus poring over every oops on linux-kernel.
whole is far more difficult than verifying a single package. For
In the case of Bash-2.0, which broke a lot of scripts anyway[*],
turning it into Bash-2.01 would only have been an improvement.
They are especially rare in this case because Hamm marks such a major change
(with libc6 and all). Thus, fixes are very hard to propogate back to Bo
Granted this changes the picture. It's probably better to focus on
2.0 and get it out before Christmas than to coddle 1.3.1 and delay
Hamm a year.
--Pete
[*] Does anyone know where there was a doc explaining that { foo }
suddenly had to become { foo; } when upgrading to Bash-2.0? That
only choked on about a hundred of my scripts that had worked fine
under 1.14 (or whatever it was)...
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
On 25-Sep-97 Pete Harlan wrote: For the most part, it means non-changing. While it would be nice to fix each package with a problem, doing so always runs the risk of breaking other packages on the system. Verifying the integrity of the system as a Perhaps this has been taken a little too much to heart; I keep updating my system thinking one or two packages must have had some fixes (security being my major concern), but nothing's changed. It's better than having a lot of minor Foo-23.deb -- Foo-24.deb updates, but gives the impression that stable means abandoned. E.g. bash-2.0, which was found to be buggy almost immediately (granted, not with a security issue, but it broke other packages). Under 1.1 and 1.2 these things were fixed right away, which led me to think that security issues would be address equally quickly; 1.3.1 makes a person wonder. I think these things ARE being fixed but the fixes are being compiled against libc6 and the new packages are going into unstable. At this point, you are probably closer to the truth than you know when you call 1.3 abandoned. It is actually libc5 that is abandoned. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
You would think, at least in the case of bash, a bash 2.01 (or whatever) would be compiled against libc5 and put in the bo-updates tree. This orphaning of the 1.3 tree sorta ticks me off. Since the kernel fiasco (2.0.30) had already occurred for the very same reason, and since we've gone through the new version naming upheaval to accomodate CD manufacturers and otherwise promote commercialization of the distribution, it's disheartening to see the mad rush to release debian 2.0. It seems to me they ought to try to wait for 2.0 until Linus thinks a 2.2.x kernel is ready. (Of course, since I don't follow the kernel development, the debian developers probably know something I don't.) I see a real possibility that the stable Debian distribution is going to be quite unstable in the coming year+, so I'd like a rock solid 1.3 point of departure. On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, George Bonser wrote: On 25-Sep-97 Pete Harlan wrote: For the most part, it means non-changing. While it would be nice to fix each package with a problem, doing so always runs the risk of breaking other packages on the system. Verifying the integrity of the system as a Perhaps this has been taken a little too much to heart; I keep updating my system thinking one or two packages must have had some fixes (security being my major concern), but nothing's changed. It's better than having a lot of minor Foo-23.deb -- Foo-24.deb updates, but gives the impression that stable means abandoned. E.g. bash-2.0, which was found to be buggy almost immediately (granted, not with a security issue, but it broke other packages). Under 1.1 and 1.2 these things were fixed right away, which led me to think that security issues would be address equally quickly; 1.3.1 makes a person wonder. I think these things ARE being fixed but the fixes are being compiled against libc6 and the new packages are going into unstable. At this point, you are probably closer to the truth than you know when you call 1.3 abandoned. It is actually libc5 that is abandoned. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re[2]: Stable means not-changing?
On the bash thing...
I think it was a posix compliance thing. The man page for the posix
shell states that { and } are reserved words and the usage is like:
{ list ; }
The man page also states that ; is a metacharacter that can be
replaced by one or more newlines. So the following would presumably
also work:
{
list
}
I also checked the ksh book (The Kornshell Command and Programming
Language) and it said the same thing (in more explicit language on page
125 161).
It seems to me that bash should have honored its extension to allow
{ list }
in any event. The key here is that it was always an extension and not
standard behavior. How serious a bug it is depends on how much you
follow posix. I probably would not have seen this bug since I use linux
as a home environment to support my work on hpux and dec osf1. Those
systems require the posix/ksh form...
jim
__ Reply Separator _
Subject: Re: Stable means not-changing?
Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] at ~AMSCCSSW
Date:9/24/97 8:24 PM
[cut stuff]
--Pete
[*] Does anyone know where there was a doc explaining that { foo }
suddenly had to become { foo; } when upgrading to Bash-2.0? That
only choked on about a hundred of my scripts that had worked fine
under 1.14 (or whatever it was)...
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
Hi, According to Civ Kevin F. Havener: You would think, at least in the case of bash, a bash 2.01 (or whatever) would be compiled against libc5 and put in the bo-updates tree. This orphaning of the 1.3 tree sorta ticks me off. Since the kernel fiasco (2.0.30) had already occurred for the very same reason, and since we've gone through the new version naming upheaval to accomodate CD manufacturers and otherwise promote commercialization of the distribution, it's disheartening to see the mad rush to release debian 2.0. It seems to me they ought to try to wait for 2.0 until Linus thinks a 2.2.x kernel is ready. (Of course, since I don't follow the kernel development, the debian developers probably know something I don't.) I see a real possibility that the stable Debian distribution is going to be quite unstable in the coming year+, so I'd like a rock solid 1.3 point of departure. Why not not installing libc6 coexisting with libc5, as described by Scott Ellis´ Mini-Howto which is weekly (?) posted on this list. It proved to be painless for me and has bash-2.01. It is a rather small step, making my system in no way unstable. I can understand the developers, that - once they decided to make the big move to libc6 - see no possibilty to maintain two versions of the same package. This has nothing to with commercialization or a mad rush. Are you a volunteer? If not, then please be a little more calm... Bye kws P.S. Is it safe to install slang0.99.38_0.99.38-2.6.deb from hamm coexisting with the libc5 version? Is slang0.99.34_0.99.38-2.6.deb (from hamm) still libc5? It should be mentioned in the Mini-Howto. -- O##OO##O O##O O##O ==The famous SchwebebahnAA==suspension==AA===AA===railway===AA Dr. Karl-Wilhelm Schulte AA AA AA AA Bergische Univ.-GH/HRZ ,__AA__AA___AA_AA___. Gaussstr. 20 | || || || |X| |X| || || || | D-42097 Wuppertal | || || || |X| |X| || || || | Tel 0202/4392807,Fax -2910 |_|| ||___|| |X|_|X| ||___|| ||_| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | |X X| | | | | `==+=+=+=+X===X+=+=+=+==' -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
Points well taken. Don't know what got into me this morning! On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, According to Civ Kevin F. Havener: You would think, at least in the case of bash, a bash 2.01 (or whatever) would be compiled against libc5 and put in the bo-updates tree. This orphaning of the 1.3 tree sorta ticks me off. Since the kernel fiasco (2.0.30) had already occurred for the very same reason, and since we've gone through the new version naming upheaval to accomodate CD manufacturers and otherwise promote commercialization of the distribution, it's disheartening to see the mad rush to release debian 2.0. It seems to me they ought to try to wait for 2.0 until Linus thinks a 2.2.x kernel is ready. (Of course, since I don't follow the kernel development, the debian developers probably know something I don't.) I see a real possibility that the stable Debian distribution is going to be quite unstable in the coming year+, so I'd like a rock solid 1.3 point of departure. Why not not installing libc6 coexisting with libc5, as described by Scott Ellis´ Mini-Howto which is weekly (?) posted on this list. It proved to be painless for me and has bash-2.01. It is a rather small step, making my system in no way unstable. I can understand the developers, that - once they decided to make the big move to libc6 - see no possibilty to maintain two versions of the same package. This has nothing to with commercialization or a mad rush. Are you a volunteer? If not, then please be a little more calm... Bye kws P.S. Is it safe to install slang0.99.38_0.99.38-2.6.deb from hamm coexisting with the libc5 version? Is slang0.99.34_0.99.38-2.6.deb (from hamm) still libc5? It should be mentioned in the Mini-Howto. -- O##OO##O O##O O##O ==The famous SchwebebahnAA==suspension==AA===AA===railway===AA Dr. Karl-Wilhelm Schulte AA AA AA AA Bergische Univ.-GH/HRZ ,__AA__AA___AA_AA___. Gaussstr. 20 | || || || |X| |X| || || || | D-42097 Wuppertal | || || || |X| |X| || || || | Tel 0202/4392807,Fax -2910 |_|| ||___|| |X|_|X| ||___|| ||_| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | | |X X| | | | | `==+=+=+=+X===X+=+=+=+==' -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
nearly impossible to have both libc5 libc6 version of the same package unless everyone have 2 (1 libc5, 1 libc6) systems. Udjat the BitMeister... wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Lawrence wrote: you can always download and install newer packages from hamm. Lawrence Ahhh, not true! bo is all libc5 and hamm is libc5 libc6. I cant take the latest gimp, tripwire etc. without adding libc6 (which I don't want to do yet.) So I have to download the package source and the diff and compile it myself... This not a problem but just a pain. I would like to see upgrades in both libc5 and libc6. Until libc6 is standard that is (ie not unstable). I know this is a lot of work, so I'll just hush now - -Erich -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNCgSY6DN4t3E2gMVAQExdQQAlsHQQFTRhWp3Nup0dJM0/BS5dJlDFoff ldzJ9L57HgS/MKDOpy5ojMzBiuN/3uDeSGZKttnfWCYnO2LEBn2tMUFhecKoGUFM +Da42fVxV9+kIMKvDYk8jPwF3/YBbtSLs4dKIJd7Y04VO4s2beZodsQPsUdXxlHa OynBYpyfK/8= =wz0T -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Lawrence wrote: nearly impossible to have both libc5 libc6 version of the same package unless everyone have 2 (1 libc5, 1 libc6) systems. Hmmm, I seem to have both libc4 and libc5 on my 1.3.1. dpkg -l libc* shows: ii libc4 4.6.27-15 The Linux C library version 4 (run-time libr ii libc5 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (run-time libr ii libc5-dev 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (development f Is this a problem? Should I remove libc4? Bob Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Bob Nielsen wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Lawrence wrote: nearly impossible to have both libc5 libc6 version of the same package unless everyone have 2 (1 libc5, 1 libc6) systems. Hmmm, I seem to have both libc4 and libc5 on my 1.3.1. dpkg -l libc* shows: ii libc4 4.6.27-15 The Linux C library version 4 (run-time libr ii libc5 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (run-time libr ii libc5-dev 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (development f Is this a problem? Should I remove libc4? no, and not unless you have no need to run old libc4 programs. if you want, you can even install libc6 and be able to run programs from hamm too. there's a catch, though. to install libc6 at the moment you have to follow the instructions in the upgrading libc5 to libc6 mini HOWTO which is posted here once per week. don't be put off by that catch, thoughthe procedure is painless and straightforward. you just have to install upgraded versions of certain packages in a certain order. *Running* libc6 based stuff is no problem. *Developing* for libc6 can be problematic if you want to compile stuff for both libc5 and libc6 on the same machine - and even that isn't a big deal...there's a documented, straight-forward procedure to follow. craig -- craig sanders networking consultant Available for casual or contract temporary autonomous zone system administration tasks. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
Hi, No, you can have libc4, libc5, and libc6 on the machine simultaneously. These are just run time shared libraries, and do not interfere with each other. There should be only one -dev package at one time. Do not remove libc4 until you are sure there is not program on your machine that depends on libc4. manoj __ dpkg -l libc\* | egrep '^\||ii' | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ NameVersionDescription ii libc4 4.6.27-15 The Linux C library version 4 (run-time libr ii libc5 5.4.33-7 The Linux C library version 5 (run-time libr ii libc5-altdev5.4.33-7 The Linux C library version 5 (alternative d ii libc6 2.0.4-1The GNU C library version 2 (run-time files) ii libc6-dev 2.0.4-1The GNU C library version 2 (development fil ii libc6-doc 2.0.4-1The GNU C library version 2 (documentation f ii libc6-pic 2.0.4-1The GNU C library version 2 (PIC library) ii libcgi-perl 2.76-2 modules for perl5, for use in writing CGI sc -- If at first you don't succeed, transform your data set. Manoj Srivastava url:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile, Alabama USAurl:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
RE: Stable means not-changing?
On 23-Sep-97 Lukas Eppler wrote: Hi, Please tell me: Does stable mean not-changing or not-segfaulting? I do not think stable was ment to be static. It was ment to mean tested and known to work on a good many systems and even probably yours while unstable means that it might or might not work on your particular configuration or that it did not meet the developer's standards for a shipable system. Feel free to take out the big bat and correct me if I am wrong. Note that it is stable and unstable not stable and dynamic or static and dynamic. Stable was not changing for weeks. I remember times (around Debian 1.2) when stable changed when non-segfaulting upgrades came out. I liked that a lot. It gave me the feeling to have the most-recent not-segfaulting software which is available, something which can't be done by sharing software on cd. Are there no new stable packages, or do I have to wait until a major upgrade is ready? -- Lukas Eppler (godot) http://www.fear.ch telnet://soil.fear.ch: talk:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
I guess this confuses me even more! Are libc4, libc5 and libc6 completely independent of each other, or are they versions of something which began as libc. In either case, why would one want to compile for more than one at a time? I take it they are neither upward nor downward compatible. On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Craig Sanders wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Bob Nielsen wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Lawrence wrote: nearly impossible to have both libc5 libc6 version of the same package unless everyone have 2 (1 libc5, 1 libc6) systems. Hmmm, I seem to have both libc4 and libc5 on my 1.3.1. dpkg -l libc* shows: ii libc4 4.6.27-15 The Linux C library version 4 (run-time libr ii libc5 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (run-time libr ii libc5-dev 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (development f Is this a problem? Should I remove libc4? no, and not unless you have no need to run old libc4 programs. if you want, you can even install libc6 and be able to run programs from hamm too. there's a catch, though. to install libc6 at the moment you have to follow the instructions in the upgrading libc5 to libc6 mini HOWTO which is posted here once per week. don't be put off by that catch, thoughthe procedure is painless and straightforward. you just have to install upgraded versions of certain packages in a certain order. *Running* libc6 based stuff is no problem. *Developing* for libc6 can be problematic if you want to compile stuff for both libc5 and libc6 on the same machine - and even that isn't a big deal...there's a documented, straight-forward procedure to follow. craig -- craig sanders networking consultant Available for casual or contract temporary autonomous zone system administration tasks. Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
There is no conflict to use libc4/5/6 dynamic libraries, though you can only have one libc-dev. Bob Nielsen wrote: I guess this confuses me even more! Are libc4, libc5 and libc6 completely independent of each other, or are they versions of something which began as libc. In either case, why would one want to compile for more than one at a time? I take it they are neither upward nor downward compatible. On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Craig Sanders wrote: On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Bob Nielsen wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Lawrence wrote: nearly impossible to have both libc5 libc6 version of the same package unless everyone have 2 (1 libc5, 1 libc6) systems. Hmmm, I seem to have both libc4 and libc5 on my 1.3.1. dpkg -l libc* shows: ii libc4 4.6.27-15 The Linux C library version 4 (run-time libr ii libc5 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (run-time libr ii libc5-dev 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (development f Is this a problem? Should I remove libc4? no, and not unless you have no need to run old libc4 programs. if you want, you can even install libc6 and be able to run programs from hamm too. there's a catch, though. to install libc6 at the moment you have to follow the instructions in the upgrading libc5 to libc6 mini HOWTO which is posted here once per week. don't be put off by that catch, thoughthe procedure is painless and straightforward. you just have to install upgraded versions of certain packages in a certain order. *Running* libc6 based stuff is no problem. *Developing* for libc6 can be problematic if you want to compile stuff for both libc5 and libc6 on the same machine - and even that isn't a big deal...there's a documented, straight-forward procedure to follow. craig -- craig sanders networking consultant Available for casual or contract temporary autonomous zone system administration tasks. Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
no, I am talking about libc?-dev? you can only have one libc?-dev in your system. Bob Nielsen wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Lawrence wrote: nearly impossible to have both libc5 libc6 version of the same package unless everyone have 2 (1 libc5, 1 libc6) systems. Hmmm, I seem to have both libc4 and libc5 on my 1.3.1. dpkg -l libc* shows: ii libc4 4.6.27-15 The Linux C library version 4 (run-time libr ii libc5 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (run-time libr ii libc5-dev 5.4.33-3 The Linux C library version 5 (development f Is this a problem? Should I remove libc4? Bob Bob Nielsen Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tucson, AZ AMPRnet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.primenet.com/~nielsen -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
On Sep 23, Bob Nielsen wrote I guess this confuses me even more! Are libc4, libc5 and libc6 completely independent of each other, or are they versions of something which began as libc. They are somewhat independent: libc4 is the Linux C library for use with the a.out format of binaries. (it is a heavily hacked version of GNU libc version one) libc5 is the Linux C library for use with the ELF binary format. licb6 is the GNU C library (version two) for use with the ELF binary format. The advantage: it is much cleaner designed implemented, better for standards compliance (e.g. POSIX) but still includes the good stuff from Linux libc Although they share parts of their code, to a user they are more or less independent. In either case, why would one want to compile for more than one at a time? We maintainers want to be able to compile code for libc5, so users of the current stable tree can get updates in case of security fixes and such. I take it they are neither upward nor downward compatible. You have to distinguish between source and binary compatibility. There is no binary compatibility: you cannot run libc4 binary with libc5; you have to have libc4 installed on that system to. There is source compatibility (but not 100%): you can compile most well written C code with libc4, 5 and 6. HTH, Ray -- PATRIOTISM A great British writer once said that if he had to choose between betraying his country and betraying a friend he hoped he would have the decency to betray his country. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
Please tell me: Does stable mean not-changing or not-segfaulting? For the most part, it means non-changing. While it would be nice to fix each package with a problem, doing so always runs the risk of breaking other packages on the system. Verifying the integrity of the system as a whole is far more difficult than verifying a single package. For this reason, updates to stable are rare. They are especially rare in this case because Hamm marks such a major change (with libc6 and all). Thus, fixes are very hard to propogate back to Bo and are in even more danger of breaking the larger picture. Brian ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) --- Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -- I took the one less travelled by, And that has made all the difference. (The Road Not Taken -- Robert Frost) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Stable means not-changing?
Hi, Please tell me: Does stable mean not-changing or not-segfaulting? Stable was not changing for weeks. I remember times (around Debian 1.2) when stable changed when non-segfaulting upgrades came out. I liked that a lot. It gave me the feeling to have the most-recent not-segfaulting software which is available, something which can't be done by sharing software on cd. Are there no new stable packages, or do I have to wait until a major upgrade is ready? -- Lukas Eppler (godot) http://www.fear.ch telnet://soil.fear.ch: talk:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
Lukas Eppler wrote: Hi, Please tell me: Does stable mean not-changing or not-segfaulting? Stable was not changing for weeks. I remember times (around Debian 1.2) when stable changed when non-segfaulting upgrades came out. I liked that a lot. It gave me the feeling to have the most-recent not-segfaulting software which is available, something which can't be done by sharing software on cd. Are there no new stable packages, or do I have to wait until a major upgrade is ready? you can always download and install newer packages from hamm. Lawrence -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Lukas Eppler wrote: Please tell me: Does stable mean not-changing or not-segfaulting? For the most part stable means non-changing. The only updates made to Debian 1.3.1 will be serious security or bug fixes, not minor changes or updates. All updated software goes into unstable in preperation for the release of Debian 2.0 Stable was not changing for weeks. I remember times (around Debian 1.2) when stable changed when non-segfaulting upgrades came out. I liked that a lot. It gave me the feeling to have the most-recent not-segfaulting software which is available, something which can't be done by sharing software on cd. Are there no new stable packages, or do I have to wait until a major upgrade is ready? Packages in the unstable (hamm) section of the archives usually work fine, but haven't necessarily been tested as well as those in stable. They also are likely to now depend on libc6, the new C library. Instructions on how to upgrade without breaking your current setup are posted every week or so as the Debian Libc5 to Libc6 Mini-HOWTO. It is also available at http://www.gate.net/~storm/FAQ/. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Stable means not-changing?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Lawrence wrote: you can always download and install newer packages from hamm. Lawrence Ahhh, not true! bo is all libc5 and hamm is libc5 libc6. I cant take the latest gimp, tripwire etc. without adding libc6 (which I don't want to do yet.) So I have to download the package source and the diff and compile it myself... This not a problem but just a pain. I would like to see upgrades in both libc5 and libc6. Until libc6 is standard that is (ie not unstable). I know this is a lot of work, so I'll just hush now - -Erich -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNCgSY6DN4t3E2gMVAQExdQQAlsHQQFTRhWp3Nup0dJM0/BS5dJlDFoff ldzJ9L57HgS/MKDOpy5ojMzBiuN/3uDeSGZKttnfWCYnO2LEBn2tMUFhecKoGUFM +Da42fVxV9+kIMKvDYk8jPwF3/YBbtSLs4dKIJd7Y04VO4s2beZodsQPsUdXxlHa OynBYpyfK/8= =wz0T -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
