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
-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)
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
-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
23 matches
Mail list logo
