Glibc
When trying to dselect upgrade to woody, I keep running into errors that say that GLIBC_2.2 is required, I tried adding things that say they have glibc, but it doesn't seem to fix it. Any recommendations?
Re: Newbieish question
I meant as a PDC :) File sharing, sure, it works with my 2k box now, but I heard that it uses legacy auth stuff. On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Sam Varghese wrote: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 14:37:51 +1000 From: Sam Varghese [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Newbieish question Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:38:17 -0700 Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 03:43:30AM +0100, Neil Durant wrote: Brian Ballsun-Stanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to unstable. My mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very, bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade to 2.4.6? (I'm running a home box as a testbed for this, so I'll be warned slightly in advance, but...) Why won't your basic Samba from stable do what you need? It works for me, with Win2k clients! Works for me too with Win2K clients. My server runs potato with a 2.2.17 kernel. Sam
Re: Glibc
while I'm upgrading, and the libc6 package was already included On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Joost Kooij wrote: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:55:16 +0200 From: Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Glibc Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 14:56:04 -0700 Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 02:31:20PM -0700, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote: When trying to dselect upgrade to woody, I keep running into errors that say that GLIBC_2.2 is required, I tried adding things that say they have glibc, but it doesn't seem to fix it. Any recommendations? Do you mean that programs complain about this after you upgraded or while you are upgrading? Cheers, Joost
Re: Newbieish question
Yes, I'm learning the if it ain't broke rule the hard way. ::Sighs:: I think once I get this system back on its feet (the whole libc thing has just shot it to hell, that I'll do a fresh reinstall from floppies to potato, and upgrade only what's necessary for samba-tng. Thanks for your suggestion. On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Andy Saxena wrote: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:48:50 -0400 From: Andy Saxena [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian Ballsun-Stanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Newbieish question Hi Brian, I recently went through two upgrade cycles - from stable (AKA Potato) to testing (AKA Woody), and then to unstable (AKA Sid). On Sid about a 100 or so packages are updated everyday. A few weeks ago, I had a severely disabled system when the PAM modules failed to function. In essence, I couldn't log into the system. It was a package dependency problem, and was fixed the next day during the next round of package updates. To ensure that my system is never disabled like this again, and to keep myself abreast with the latest software I am in the process of developing guidelines for myself about upgrading packages. Here are my guidelines. Hopefully, they will offer some help. 1)Updates to the Sid packages can be divided into the following categories: a) New upstream release. b) Critical bug-fixes with priorities other than low. c) Bug-fixes with priority low. 2)If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Many will recommend that a cron job be run to update packages daily. I think this is wasteful for somebody trying to maintain stability in an otherwise unstable setup. I subscribe to the debian-devel-changes mailing list, and I filter the 100 or so messages that I receive everyday regarding updates based on the criteria in point (1). This leaves about five emails to peruse everyday and doesn't take more than five minutes. 3) More importantly, I don't try to upgrade a package unless I need a new feature, or a critical bug-fix is needed. 4) Some packages - like the libpam package - can break your sytem critically. Be very wary when upgrading these packages. It would be wise to download the package, and watch the mailing list for updates in the days following. Better still, wait a few days and watch the bug reports posted for that package. Once satisfied that the package is stable, install it. 5) One may wish to have the latest features for a piece of software. When an upstream release occurs, wait a few days and follow the steps in point (3) before updating. 6) [Especially when multiple machines need to be updated]. Download the package on one machine. Update it, ensure that the system is not disabled in any manner. Use the same packages (share the download directory) and update the other systems. These guidelines are rather elementary, but so far they have proved worthwhile :-). -Andy On Sunday July 15 2001 15:11, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote: Please take pity :) I'm an extreme newbie to debian (having installed it for the first time about a week ago. I was assiged the task of setting up a 50 seat network, and since we're an edcuational institution, we have a really tight budget: the savings of not having to buy a $9 per person liscence are quite hefty. Unfortuantly, we'll still be using w2k clients. Now, not having my head completly buried in my ::cough:: I knew that samba could provide file sharing. Little did I know that samba-tng would provide good w2k access. This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to unstable. My mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very, bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade to 2.4.6? (I'm running a home box as a testbed for this, so I'll be warned slightly in advance, but...) I'd love any advice or assistance. If anyone wants to help, or discuss this over lunch, I live in LA, and I'll be going to rochester, NY, for 3 days next week. I'd love to actually discuss this with someone who knows what they're talking about. Thank you, -Brian
Newbieish question
Please take pity :) I'm an extreme newbie to debian (having installed it for the first time about a week ago. I was assiged the task of setting up a 50 seat network, and since we're an edcuational institution, we have a really tight budget: the savings of not having to buy a $9 per person liscence are quite hefty. Unfortuantly, we'll still be using w2k clients. Now, not having my head completly buried in my ::cough:: I knew that samba could provide file sharing. Little did I know that samba-tng would provide good w2k access. This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to unstable. My mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very, bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade to 2.4.6? (I'm running a home box as a testbed for this, so I'll be warned slightly in advance, but...) I'd love any advice or assistance. If anyone wants to help, or discuss this over lunch, I live in LA, and I'll be going to rochester, NY, for 3 days next week. I'd love to actually discuss this with someone who knows what they're talking about. Thank you, -Brian
Re: Newbieish question
Well, sorta ::chuckles:: I don't mind upgrading stuff (I think...) but... I don't know what not to do I think main question is: how unstable is unstable, and how do I make it more stable? Thanks for answering, BTW :) -Brian On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Stephen Rueger wrote: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 04:21:21 +0200 From: Stephen Rueger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Newbieish question Resent-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 12:22:21 -0700 Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 12:11:38PM -0700, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote: This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to unstable. My mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very, bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade to 2.4.6? (I'm running a home box as a testbed for this, so I'll be warned slightly in advance, but...) You can compile package foo from source with apt-get -b source foo, so that you don't have to dist-upgrade everything. Just put these lines in your /etc/apt/sources.list: deb-src http://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main contrib non-free Don't forget to apt-get upgrade :-) Hope this helps. Stephen Rueger
Re: Newbieish question
Thank you, Its not so much upgrading to testing, or to 2.4... I'm just wondering if 2.4 will improve stablitity in unstable. The only thing I have to go to unstable for is samba-tng (for my 2k clients). And I want to minimize my risk of downtime. Is woody more stable than unstable? ::sigh:: I'm confused. By unstable, lets see, I mean: 1) the Debian version. 2)my system. 3) my mind :). Anyways, I'm very heartened to hear that the non official stable versions are quite stable. People go out for blood when servers go down, and since we're trying to prove ourselves (in this environment) I'd hate to have people with pitchforks looking to drive a stake through my heart Anyways, thank you again, this is very helpful. -Brian P.s. Does anyone know any good things to sacrifice to the god of computing? He got really angry (for some reason) on my birthday, (the 14th) ::chuckles:: On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, David Purton wrote: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:57:17 +0930 (CST) From: David Purton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian Ballsun-Stanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Newbieish question On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote: Unfortuantly, we'll still be using w2k clients. Now, not having my head completly buried in my ::cough:: I knew that samba could provide file sharing. Little did I know that samba-tng would provide good w2k access. This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to unstable. My mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very, bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade to 2.4.6? (I'm running a home box as a testbed for this, so I'll be warned slightly in advance, but...) I'd love any advice or assistance. just to clarify by unstable do you mean the debian unstable distribution or a 2.4 kernel? if the former read below - others will be better able to advise on the stability of the 2.4 kernels (but I've had no probs so far) It's not necessary to upgrade to unstable just to run a 2.4 kernel - hunt in the archives of this list - and I'm sure there is a reference on how to get a 2.4 kernel running with potato. Another possibilty is to go halfway and just upgrade to woody (testing) - If been running it for ages on my home box and nothing much has gone wrong at all - but be aware that security updates take longer to find there way into woody than the stable or unstable distros If anyone wants to help, or discuss this over lunch, I live in LA, and I'll be going to rochester, NY, for 3 days next week. I'd love to actually discuss this with someone who knows what they're talking about. sorry - I live in Adelaide, South Australia and there is some doubt that I know what I'm talking about :) cheers dc Today people in droves hurry up past Heumoz to Villars on the road to the ski hills, so they can rush down them as fast as possible, so they can hurry up again in order to rush down again. In a way this is funny,... Francis A Schaeffer David Purton http://www.chariot.net.au/~dcpurton/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
