Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Roger Leigh:
>
>> We can't provide proper security support, and by now, libc5 is likely
>> full of holes, so IMO it's best if we drop it. It's not like there's
>> any active maintenance or w
* Roger Leigh:
> We can't provide proper security support, and by now, libc5 is likely
> full of holes, so IMO it's best if we drop it. It's not like there's
> any active maintenance or we can do any serious work on it: it's dead
> code.
>
> If user
e to our users if we stop shipping
> them.
We can't provide proper security support, and by now, libc5 is likely
full of holes, so IMO it's best if we drop it. It's not like there's
any active maintenance or we can do any serious work on it: it's dead
code.
If users need i
it
probably doesn't make a difference to our users if we stop shipping
them.
> and I think Debian is like the only living Linux distribution out
> there still shipping libc5.
Are you sure? I would be very surprised if the "enterprise"
distributions didn't ship it as well.
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:52:34AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:33:13AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > Debian unstable & testing still carry around libc5, and some associated
> > packages like altgcc, libdb1, ld.so and a few others.
>
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:33:13AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> Debian unstable & testing still carry around libc5, and some associated
> packages like altgcc, libdb1, ld.so and a few others.
Hmm, i386 only?
Bastian
--
No one may kill a man. Not for any purpose. It
Hi all,
Debian unstable & testing still carry around libc5, and some associated
packages like altgcc, libdb1, ld.so and a few others.
Is there nowadays still a use for these packages? Does the amount of
usage warrant the efforts it take to maintain these rather outdated
packages? I get a m
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still
> > > > > around
> > > > > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even
> > >
l me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
> > > > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed.
> > >
> > > the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is compatible
> > > to
> > >
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:23:04PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
> > > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It
> > > doesn't hang like NS though
* Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
> > was... Although I've still had it vanish a couple of times recently. It
> > doesn't hang like NS though.
>
> There are some sites that still require Netscape 4.77. A good example
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
&
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> me wrote:
> > some pages where mozilla/opera/konquerror fails. I would hate to reboot, to
> Tried mozilla recently? It's a thousand times better than Netscape 4.7x
navigator is mu
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:49:54AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
> > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
>
> > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> > which are libc5 related:
> >
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > and others, partial
no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The
> > > only
> > > >reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to
> > > maintain
> > > >the package.
> >
> > > This looks like a good enough reason to m
r wireless tools. There are a
> > > whole
> >
> > Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
> > that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed.
>
> I'm not talking about DRI programs; I'm talking about ju
* John Goerzen
| Since providing this capability requires only free software on
| Debian's part, where exactly is the problem?
Manpower.
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Many video cards require XFree 4.3.x or above. They require agpgart in the
> > kernel. They require iwconfig and other wireless tools. There are a whole
>
> Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 pr
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 04:58:09PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]:
> > On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
> >
* Marco d'Itri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030622 16:35]:
> On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
> >reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
>
On Jun 22, Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
>reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
>the package.
This looks like a good enough reason to me.
--
c
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:26:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries?
> I really don't understand why this is such a difficult problem. If, for
> instance, gcc 2.7.2 could build these things three years ago, why
Le sam 21/06/2003 à 19:26, John Goerzen a écrit :
> > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
> > work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
>
> Assuming it supports you
On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 10:23:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Tell me, you seriously think that there is a libc5 program still around
> that uses DRI ? Hell, libc5 was abandoned well before DRI even existed.
the only libc5 program I do use is netscape 4.77 because it is compatible to
some
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 12:26:52PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Alternative 1:
> >
> > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> > an older distribution of Debian (say potat
John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why not just ship an old binutils/gcc to build the old libc5 binaries?
There is no technical reason why we can't support libc5 anymore. The only
reason that this is being discussed is that nobody has stood up to maintain
the packag
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> Alternative 1:
>
> You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
> work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
Assum
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:57:03PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> M, that's the basis of freelosophy. Don't use proprietary formats and
> don't
> use proprietary software. The risk of being unable to use your own
> documents is concrete. Who owns your docs? Corel does. Microsoft does.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:27:57AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> >
> > You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> > an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the pr
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:33:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>
> On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine
> wrote:
>
> >And surely Debian DOES NOT support
> >non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
>
> No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See cl
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
> an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
> work. Yes, it can be a hassle, but it works.
>
Also woody...
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:35:18PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> As long as these doc's exist someone will make money by providing the
> means of reading them, if OOo does not.
That someone is Microsoft.
> IMHO, the problem has been resolved.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it
> > was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck.
> >
>
> If he was really interested in his
On Thursday, Jun 19, 2003, at 06:57 US/Eastern, Francesco P. Lovergine
wrote:
And surely Debian DOES NOT support
non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
No, but we do support our users who attempt to run it. See clause 1 of
the Social Contract.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:43:23PM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
|| Debian can continue to drag along support for libc5-binaries (hey,
|| nobody out there with need for libc4?)
(raises hand)
Ciao. Vincent.
t;
> Please remember this is 2003 and not 1983. People have accumulated a lot
> on their HDDs in twenty years.
What it comes down to is this:
Alternative 1:
You, and rest of the minority who use libc5 program, can dual-boot
an older distribution of Debian (say potato) where the programs still
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:59:46AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> > which are libc5 related:
>
> I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really need
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:39:45AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> >
>
> Take the Lawyer example. He probably bought his legal practice when it
> was all Word. He does not like it, he is stuck.
>
If he was really interested in his data, he should convert them in a
standard and portable format s
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
I agree, with the proviso that we make sure anyone who really needs to
can install the old libc5 support packages from archive.debian.org
without bre
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Chris Halls wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
> > because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
> > Word documents.
>
> Is that sti
businesses it will be a few decades.
> Also, none can ensure that whenever Sarge will be released, it will be
> wp-compliant at alli (also with libc5). WP for Linux is in
> End-of-support and End-of-life status. And surely Debian DOES NOT
> support non-free (in DFSG sense) software,
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:03:52AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> Err, Zack, I say zlib1... zlib1g* is libc6 related.
Ok, thanks, never mind.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/za
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:29:01PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> We have a lawyer here who is a GNU/linux geek who still has to use MS Word
> because openoffice.org cannot handle the complex formatting of his legacy
> Word documents.
Is that still true for OOo 1.1beta2? Are there open bug report
formats and don't
use proprietary software. The risk of being unable to use your own
documents is concrete. Who owns your docs? Corel does. Microsoft does.
You no more own your docs when you agree with any commercial EULA
and use a commercial product. You could be unable to use _current_ M$ doc
wi
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> > documents.
> >
>
> That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing.
> Wordperfect 11 is no
7;s zlib1 not zlib1g. We're not running a libc5 zlib.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
pgprrzntGZklz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> documents.
>
That's exactly one of the old-days craps around I was pointing.
Wordperfect 11 is now a windoze-only program.
Also Applixware 5 (another dead produ
hat has that to do with it ? I thougt the proposal was only yo
remove the old libc5 libraries, not their libc6 version, which
zlib1g-dev is (because of the g and everything).
But then maybe i am missing something.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 08:55:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > zlib1
>
> The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
> Which is the newer alternative to this package?
>
Err, Zack, I say zlib1...
tdev) and zlib1g(-dev) are different
packages, the former ones are for libc5, the latter ones link against
libc6.
cu andreas
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> zlib1
The ocaml bindings to zlib still build depend on zlib1g-dev.
Which is the newer alternative to this package?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debi
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 10:56:32AM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> documents.
In my experience, either AbiWord or KWord is able to read these
documents. But of course, libwpd can't be perfect... you give some and
take some :)
-J
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
> > And pester wordperfect^WCorel to use libraries from the current millenium.
>
> Or pester openoffice.org for a WP filter and booklet printing.
I was going to mention OOo, but since I don't know what it can currently do,
I wasn't about to put my foot
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
>
> > xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> > documents.
>
> Note that the packages won't be removed from your system, they will simply
> no longer be in the Debian archive. Thi
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Philip Charles wrote:
> xpm4.7 is needed for WordPerfect 8. I have a mass of wp5.1 and wp8
> documents.
Note that the packages won't be removed from your system, they will simply
no longer be in the Debian archive. This *may* become a problem if you
clean-install a future v
7;s a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
>
> libc5
> libc5-altdev
> libc5-altdbg
> altgcc
> libdb1
> libdb1-altdev
> libdl1
> libdl1-altdev
> zlib1
> ldso
> libg++27-altdev
> libregex0-altdev
> svgalib1
ry is missing some symbols for
some reason. AFAICT, this happens completely at random (i.e. if I use
pbuilder twice on the package, it might be broken one time and fine
the next).
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
I agre
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:17:43PM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
> zlib1
This is going to vanish shortly anyway unless the libc5 bug is fixed
since it breaks zlib builds.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
> which are libc5 related:
>
[SNIP]
>
> and others, partially.
>
> This could impact potentially very old (commercial mostly) binaries,
> Co
Hi all
Someone could already know this amazing bug:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=196015
IMO it's a good moment to drop all the following i386-specific packages
which are libc5 related:
libc5
libc5-altdev
libc5-altdbg
altgcc
libdb1
libdb1-altdev
libdl1
libdl1-altdev
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 09:19:20PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> I've heard that the bug is in ld.so, and that the current potato
> version of ldso fixes the problem.
>
> Can you verify or disprove that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Raul
Yes. This new ldso fixed it wit
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 08:06:47PM -0500, Mr. Christopher F. Miller wrote:
> RE: potato upgrade killed libc5
Yes, and it's now fixed with ldso 1.9.11-3, which should be propagating around
the mirrors right now - if it isn't already. It's on ftp.debian.org atm.
- Rob
--
RE: potato upgrade killed libc5
I ran an apt-get upgrade over the past weekend. That and/or an upgrade
to new 2.2.12 kernel seems to have killed all my old binaries depending
on libc5.
Mostly the affected files amount to cruft. There is(was) a commercial
xvscan with scanner support that died
>>>>> "JNH" == Junio Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JNH> The changes between the upgrade I did Friday did not, as far as
JNH> I can tell, involve libc5 nor xlib6. From the diff between
JNH> /var/lib/dpkg/status* file, I did not see anything suspicio
>>>>> "SW" == Shane Wegner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SW> It seems that Friday's potato upgrade broke libc5. I cannot seem to run any
SW> binaries compiled against libc5 anymore. Unfortunately programs like l3dec
SW> and such cannot be recompiled.
Hi,
It seems that Friday's potato upgrade broke libc5. I cannot seem to run any
binaries compiled against libc5 anymore. Unfortunately programs like l3dec
and such cannot be recompiled. Weird thing is libc5 didn't change. Has
anyone else seen this problem on their systems and any i
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 11:14:18PM +0100, Eric Delaunay wrote:
>
> Debian/SPARC is still providing libc 5.3.12 in binary form but no sources.
> I don't think the libc 5.4.46 is working for sparc, therefore we need to put
> the 5.3.12 sources in slink again.
> As the maintainer
Debian/SPARC is still providing libc 5.3.12 in binary form but no sources.
I don't think the libc 5.4.46 is working for sparc, therefore we need to put
the 5.3.12 sources in slink again.
As the maintainer of libc5 I can do a new upload but I don't know whether the
dinstall script will
David Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 08:35:47PM +0100, Chris Reed wrote:
> >As listed in The Hamm Bugs Stamp-Out List for 1998-06-08, p3nfs is still
> >linked against libc5, and the maintainer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Billy
> >C.-M. Chow) ca
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 08:35:47PM +0100, Chris Reed wrote:
>As listed in The Hamm Bugs Stamp-Out List for 1998-06-08, p3nfs is still
>linked against libc5, and the maintainer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Billy
>C.-M. Chow) cannot be contacted.
>
>I have looked on ftp.uni-elargen.de:/p
As listed in The Hamm Bugs Stamp-Out List for 1998-06-08, p3nfs is still
linked against libc5, and the maintainer, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Billy
C.-M. Chow) cannot be contacted.
I have looked on ftp.uni-elargen.de:/pub/psion3/local/utilities and found a
glibc diff for
'Santiago Vila wrote:'
>
>Please, tell me how much harm does to add a Pre-Depends field on libc6,
>ncurses3.4 and libreadlineg2 for netstd. I can tell you how much
>inconvenience does *not* to add it and then we can make a comparison
>between those two inconveniences.
Too much, IMHO.
--
Christop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Peter Tobias wrote:
> On Apr 16, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Summary: In a bo system, I managed to upgrade netstd without installing
> > libreadlineg2 first and the simple ftp client stopped working. This is a
> > really bad situation I really
On Apr 16, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Summary: In a bo system, I managed to upgrade netstd without installing
> libreadlineg2 first and the simple ftp client stopped working. This is a
> really bad situation I really do not desire to anybody.
>
> This should not have happened if netstd would have a Pr
>termcap-compat-1.1.1(extra) Christian Hudon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
this should maybe go in oldlibs, but stay libc5 !
e.g. if you install Accerlarated X - their setup programm needs
this library.
i don't know, if a libc6 version of this is necessary, i hope not
(that people fi
Hi,
On i386, the following packages are still libc5-based or have
dependencies on libc5 based packages:
dotfile-1:2.2-1 Igor Grobman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- depends on libc5 versions of tcl/tk
gnats-tk-3.104-4 Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-- di
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Please, tell me how much harm does to add a Pre-Depends field on libc6,
> ncurses3.4 and libreadlineg2 for netstd. I can tell you how much
> inconvenience does *not* to add it and then we can make a comparison
> between those two inconveniences.
I've h
will make the libc5 to lib6 upgrade *much* more robust.
Perhaps people doing the upgrade by using the mini-howto or autoup.sh will
not notice it (no harm with these extra Pre-Depends), but people doing the
upgrade by using dselect will certainly notice it (possible harm, which we
can avoid, and
argue that this problem is due to the fact that ddd is a libc5-compat
application.
My nsswitch.conf says:
hosts: files dns
Is this a bug or is it my fault?
Cheers, Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
#! /bin/sh
DPKG=`which dpkg`
LDCONFIG=`which ldconfig`
# uncomment for debugging
#set -x
#DPKG="echo dpkg"
#LDCONFIG="echo LDCONFIG"
# upgrade a libc5 (bo) machine to libc6 (hamm).
# based on Scott Ellis' excellent "Debian libc5 to libc6 Mini-HOWTO"
# docu
> This version should be close to good enough. The major change since
> the last one that was posted is the ability to upgrade from files in
> the current dir instead of a local mirror requirement.
>
> This script still needs testing.
> # upgrade a libc5 (bo) mach
Igor Grobman wrote:
>
>
> This version should be close to good enough. The major change since the last
> one that was posted is the ability to upgrade from files in the current dir
> instead of a local mirror requirement.
llug.sep.bnl.gov is a public nfs mount for debian. You can point the s
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Lindsay Allen wrote:
> > > > Still one problem. /wg-15-locale/s//wg15-locale/
> > > damn. i thought i got that one this morning.
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Lindsay Allen wrote:
> > > Still one problem. /wg-15-locale/s//wg15-locale/
> > damn. i thought i got that one this morning.
> > i wont bother posting the script again. it's easy e
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Lindsay Allen wrote:
> > Still one problem. /wg-15-locale/s//wg15-locale/
> damn. i thought i got that one this morning.
> i wont bother posting the script again. it's easy enough to fix.
Could this script be uploaded to ftp.debian
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Lindsay Allen wrote:
> Still one problem. /wg-15-locale/s//wg15-locale/
damn. i thought i got that one this morning.
i wont bother posting the script again. it's easy enough to fix.
craig
--
craig sanders
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsub
Still one problem. /wg-15-locale/s//wg15-locale/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lindsay Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Perth, Western Australia
voice +61 8 9316 248632.0125S 115.8445Evk6lj Debian Unix
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
eb && dpkg -iB */perl_*.deb
missed it entirely.
ok, here's the next revision:
---cut here---
#! /bin/sh
# safely upgrade a libc5 (bo) machine to libc6 (hamm).
# based on Scott Ellis' excellent "Debian libc5 to libc6 Mini-HOWTO"
# document at http://www.gate.net/
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
[snip]
> dpkg -iB base/libgdbm1_*.deb devel/libgdbmg1_*.deb || exit 8
> # paranoia says "run ldconfig now".
> ldconfig
> dpkg -iB base/perl-base_*.deb interpreters/perl_*.deb
Did you miss the change re perl?
# perl-base must be configured before insta
upgrade and suggest that more use be
> made of this to bring the script to a halt after an error.
done.
> Is it OK to do the reboot asked for by the libc5 upgrade at the
> completion of the script?
yes, it's ok to type 'shutdown -r now'. no, i wont make the script do
I still have a not-quite-finished upgrade of the experimental dpkg-ftp
done. I fixed some bugs and added immediate configuration of
pre-depended on targets and essential packages. I also improved the
backend logic so that it will only use later backends if the version
is newer. For example, you
On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 1998 at 09:52:00AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > # development because libc5 can't be upgraded to latest without removal
> > # of libc5-dev which also necessitates removal of other -dev packages
> > # like li
cript to a halt after an error.
Is it OK to do the reboot asked for by the libc5 upgrade at the completion
of the script?
--- cut here ---
#! /bin/sh
# some corrections by Lindsay Allen
# upgrade a libc5 (bo) machine to libc6 (hamm).
# based on Scott Ellis' excellent "Debian libc5
On Thu, Jan 08, 1998 at 09:52:00AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> # development because libc5 can't be upgraded to latest without removal
> # of libc5-dev which also necessitates removal of other -dev packages
> # like libdb1-dev and libdl1-dev if they are installed.
>
> DEV
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> cd /debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386
Grr.
cd /debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-$(dpkg --print-installation-architecture)
--
James - Hardcoded-i[345]86 detection alarm triggered
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsub
machine they want to test this on? I haven't got any left,
they're all upgraded now :-)
--- cut here ---
#! /bin/sh
# upgrade a libc5 (bo) machine to libc6 (hamm).
# based on Scott Ellis' excellent "Debian libc5 to libc6 Mini-HOWTO"
# document.
# first, build up a lis
Okay. The version I sent you contains two fixes (aside from the
extra changelog entries).
Ray Dassen added an entry for libc5-dbg to the control file (both
debian/control and debian/control.hamm). This is necessary because
the debian/rules file tries to build libc5-dbg, and fails if it
doesn&#
38/debian/control
--- libc-5.4.38.orig/debian/control Mon Dec 29 20:23:05 1997
+++ libc-5.4.38/debian/control Mon Dec 29 17:47:18 1997
@@ -12,8 +12,6 @@
These libraries are modified to make them work better in a libc6
environment.
PRE-DEPENDS: ldso (>=1.7.14-2)
-DEPENDS: libc6 (>
I think there should be a set-params script in all packages that require
interaction. This script should get params from the user, store them in
COAS repository, and then the pre-inst and post-inst should use those
parameters, getting them from COAS. The set-params script should not
require that th
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
