Re: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 11:36:08PM -0600, Larry 'Daffy' Daffner wrote:
> JC> Fair warning WAS given.
>
> Depends on what you consider "fair warning". There was discussion of
> potato containing glibc2.1 but no flag that it was happening, and if
> you're paranoid hold off a bit. It was also stated in the debian-devel
> discussion that the upgrade would not break any binaries compiled with
> glibc2.0, which has shown to be false, and is even documented in the
> FAQ shipped with the new libc package. The breakages so far are
> mostly minor, depending on what's relevant to you. I'm just saying it
> could have been handled more gracefully.
unstable is supposed to break form time to time. it's necessary, and
there's no way of avoiding it if we want debian to progress.
that's WHY it's called unstable: if you can't afford to risk it, then
take a hint from the name and don't use it.
there has been some discussion recently on fixing the release production
process, so that files move automatically from incoming to a holding
area (equivalent to the current unstable) and semi-auto from the holding
area to unstable. packages would only move from holding to unstable if
a) all dependencies are met, and b) no serious bugs had been reported.
from unstable, packages would be manually selected and moved to frozen,
and thence to stable.
Incoming -> holding -> unstable -> frozen -> release.
the exact details are yet to be worked out, but the above is a
reasonable summary of the proposals.
something like this would make 'unstable' safer to use - most of the
really serious problems would be shaken out during the 'holding' stage.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: