reassign 324550 libc6 thanks On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:17:58AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 07:49:23PM +0900, Simon Horman [Horms] wrote: > > long time no see. It seems that the problem is indeed fixed if you get > > the sarge (or later) versions of e2fsprogs and glibc. However, some > > people don't have that, and its causing some breakage for those people. > > Would it be possible for you to add the conflicts that Ted suggested to > > the next glibc release. This would seem like a nice way to make the > > problem go away for everyone. > > Hmm, OK. This is how I understand the problem. > > If you are using the sarge versions of e2fsprogs (1.37-2sarge1) and > libc6 (2.3.2), you're fine. > > If you are using the latest unstable versions of e2fsprogs (1.38-1 or > the just uploaded 1.38-2) and glibc (2.3.5) you're also fine. > > The problem comes if you are using the sarge (1.37-2sarge1) version of > e2fsprogs (or any version of e2fsprogs before 1.37-5) and an unstable > version of glibc which is newer than 2.3.4, due to the change in what > ldd outputs (the linux-gate.so entry). > > Since we can't retroactively fix e2fsprogs (although I suppose I am > trying to get an updated 1.37-2sarge2 into the next stable update, I > could try to convince the release managers to let me get an additional > conflicts added, or to get the linux-gate.so filtering added to > -2sarge2), the only way to fix this is to add the conflicts line to > libc6. > > On the other hand, do we have to support these kinds of wierd > cross-release dependencies? I have in the past updated to an unstable > version of libc on a stable system, for various sordid reasons, but I > always considered it something hazardous that might break things. I > don't know that supporting a mix-and-match between stable and unstable > is something we have to do, and if it means adding extra hair into > libc6's dependencies that in practice may not get removed for a long > time, is it worth doing?
I'm not sure that kind of mixing and matching is really supported, in the sense that if a new version exists, the recommended solution is always to upgrade. I think your idea is worthwile, as people do mix and match, but I'll also understand if Goto-san doesn't wan the extra cruft in control - it will become irrelevant over time. I'm going to reassign this bug to libc6, Goto-san can close it from there in whatever way he sees fit. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]