On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 12:55:59PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:13:14 +0200,
Denis Barbier wrote:
[...]
I had a closer look, and those [EMAIL PROTECTED] locales are added by
debian/patches/locales-supported.dpatch, which means that they are
Debian specific. They were
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:13:50 +0200,
Denis Barbier wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 12:55:59PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:13:14 +0200,
Denis Barbier wrote:
[...]
I had a closer look, and those [EMAIL PROTECTED] locales are added by
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 10:32:53 +0200,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:20:06 +0200,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
IMHO libc6 should not depend upon other packages at
all. If there is no way around this, then it should
work with any /bin/sh, not just bash.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:24:12AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:13:50 +0200,
Denis Barbier wrote:
[...]
You said in the previous mail:
Moreover, it's good idea to describe: how to handle the basic
environment variable (for example LANG) in debian.
Denis,
BTW, even we use /bin/bash, do we have reason to use /bin/sh? If so,
why? bash is included in the base system. We use various tools for
postinst/preinst, because those tools are also in the bootstrapping
base system.
While policy currently has bash in the base system, it might not always.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:32:53AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
I have read libc6.preinst and postinst, but I am not sure what you are
trying to tell? There are some $() inside which could be replaced by
`` to support other shells,
$() is supported by all POSIX shells. It's not a bashism.
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 23:38:21 -0400,
Jeff Bailey wrote:
BTW, even we use /bin/bash, do we have reason to use /bin/sh? If so,
why? bash is included in the base system. We use various tools for
postinst/preinst, because those tools are also in the bootstrapping
base system.
While policy
GOTO Masanori wrote:
At Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:20:06 +0200,
Harald Dunkel wrote:
IMHO libc6 should not depend upon other packages at
all. If there is no way around this, then it should
work with any /bin/sh, not just bash.
Why does there is no way around this lead it should work with any
/bin/sh?
Bonjour à tous,
I wanted to install libdb1-compat glibc6 on Debian ppc woody. I was
wondering if it was expected that installing these would remove 9
packages, including g++.
challenger:/home/jlam/apps/debs# apt-get install libdb1-compat
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 11:40:14AM -0400, Julien Lamarche wrote:
I wanted to install libdb1-compat glibc6 on Debian ppc woody.
That's not a good idea. If you want to upgrade those, you would be far
better off upgrading your whole system to sarge.
I was wondering if it was expected that
glibc_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
libc6_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
libc6-prof_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
libc6-pic_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
libc6-sparc64_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
Accepted:
libc6-dbg_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dbg_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
libc6-dev-sparc64_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dev-sparc64_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
to pool/main/g/glibc/libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-16_sparc.deb
12 matches
Mail list logo
