the dependencies seem to be satisfied. Maybe they are not stated
correctly/strictly enough?.
If there's any clarification that's available and worth stating,
that would be great.
Thanks a ton for your highly appreciated work,
Andreas Mohr
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ
or so (not so important though)
Thanks for some very nice work! (15 years and counting on this box)
Andreas Mohr
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org
rely on that at this moment ;-)).
[note that I recently changed package status to purged -
which was ultimately unsuccessful since ldso is obviously required by
the properly installed libc5 package]
Thanks,
Andreas Mohr
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:48:49AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Mohr wrote:
Don't tell me that this upgrade just successfully and singlehandedly
broke any and all libc4/5 compat... (not that I personally would still much
rely on that at this moment
hours
(possibly even longer with more modern installations),
due to the slow performance there's a rather high chance to hit the
cron.daily 24 hour processing's race window.
Andreas Mohr
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
definitely want to see a protection applied,
despite being a __severe__ problem for a branch-hopping minority(?) only.
Thanks,
Andreas Mohr
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive
(required by /lib/security/pam_unix.so)]
Apr 12 17:51:23 gate z:0: PAM adding faulty module: /lib/security/pam_unix.so
I assume that the same applies to gdm or kdm.
--
Andreas MohrStauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany
Tel. +49 7159 800604http://mohr.de.tt
7 matches
Mail list logo
