On 2016-06-04 12:38, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno, on Sat 04 Jun 2016 11:59:30 +0200, wrote:
> > On 2016-06-04 11:37, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Aurelien Jarno, on Sat 04 Jun 2016 11:04:03 +0200, wrote:
> > > > That said I don't know what we can do from the glibc side point of view
>
Aurelien Jarno, on Sat 04 Jun 2016 11:59:30 +0200, wrote:
> On 2016-06-04 11:37, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Aurelien Jarno, on Sat 04 Jun 2016 11:04:03 +0200, wrote:
> > > That said I don't know what we can do from the glibc side point of view
> > > to change this behavior.
> >
> > We could keep
On 2016-06-04 11:37, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno, on Sat 04 Jun 2016 11:04:03 +0200, wrote:
> > That said I don't know what we can do from the glibc side point of view
> > to change this behavior.
>
> We could keep a dumb empty lib6-i686 package for the Stretch release?
Wouldn't that
Aurelien Jarno, on Sat 04 Jun 2016 11:04:03 +0200, wrote:
> That said I don't know what we can do from the glibc side point of view
> to change this behavior.
We could keep a dumb empty lib6-i686 package for the Stretch release?
Samuel
Hi,
On 2016-06-03 16:28, Kingsley G. Morse Jr. wrote:
> Package: libc6-i686
> Version: 2.22-7
> Severity: minor
>
> Hey guys,
>
> I hope you're well.
>
>
> * What led up to the situation?
>
>While installing security patches, aptitude
>asked if it would be OK to remove libc6-i686,
>
Package: libc6-i686
Version: 2.22-7
Severity: minor
Hey guys,
I hope you're well.
* What led up to the situation?
While installing security patches, aptitude
asked if it would be OK to remove libc6-i686,
and neither
$ apt-cache show libc6-i686
or
$ aptitude
6 matches
Mail list logo
