On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 01:01:59PM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote: > On Tue 13 Feb 2001, Jon Leonard wrote: > > > There are 3 packages that are currently giving me trouble: > > w3m, man-db, and vim-gtk. [dselect stuff snipped] > > w3m depends on libc6.1 (>= 2.1.97) > > Ah, this is potato!
I should have made that more clear, yeah. [vi behavior] > Yes, I can reproduce this on a potato system. > I'm not sure how to cope with this; I guess I could upload to > "stable", and hope it gets into proposed-updates; however, I > recall one of the ftp-masters writing that proposed-updates > should go away... > > The point is that potato is "stable", meaning nothing really gets > changed there. > Aargh, man-db got installed as a security-fix a couple of days > ago. Whoever Somehow the alpha package must have been botched > (the i386 package is OK). I'll have a look at fixing this for > potato. Maybe there needs to be a policy discussion on what to do with obviously broken security updates? It seems to me that a system where the admin can't use man may be some sort of security risk all by itself. > > It only generates the zsoelim message once for each man page looked at, > > though > > installing a man-db package resets that. My best guess would be that man-db > > It only generates a manpage if there isn't one in the cache. > Apparently even with the error a file (possibly empty) is created. I figured as much. I mentioned it because it affected the reproducability of the problem. > > I suspect that the vim-gtk was built on a system that didn't have gtk > > installed at the time, so the configure step built a non-graphical vim. > > Build-Depends should help against that in the future... Cool. I take it there's basically no chance of getting a fixed (rebuilt) version into stable or proposed-updates, though? > > user unaligned acc : 39158409 (pc=12004e170,va=1203801d2) > > Ouch, that's a lot... Well, the system has been up for a while, but yeah. > Anyway, it might be recommendable to upgrade to "testing", > which is quite usable IMHO. At least there things can be > fixed easily. That sort of defeats the purpose of stable, doesn't it? I'm running Debian stable because I want a system that won't break on me, but still gets timely security fixes. (And for the most part, Debian stable does this admirably) I recommend Debian to my less computer-adept friends for similar reasons. Maybe we should call testing stable instead, if it's less broken. Anyway, thanks for your help. Jon Leonard
