> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> So for the record, right now libc6 2.1.1-2 is broken for all
Ben> sun4m arch's in the unstable dist, so please don't upgrade to
Ben> it, if you have sun4m. Sun4[udc] are known to work perfectly
Ben> fine.
Unless running yo
> "Samuel" == Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Samuel> 2.2.7? I thought you had the same problem (or maybe it was
Samuel> someone else, but it was posted on the list) as me,
Samuel> i.e. 2.2.7 not booting on Sun4m.
Nope. I posted that 2.2.7 was the lowest kernel with whi
On 5/05, Ben Collins wrote:
| That's just not possible...been thought of, and there is no real
| solution. I suggest for people testing _unstable_ to seriously consider
| installing sash (a static compiled shell) and always keep .debs around
| of a working libc6.
Thanks for the advice, it's now
On 5/05, Ben Collins wrote:
|
| Nope, it's due to some brokeness that we need to fix pronto, I am
| uploading and one today in time for dinstall into the archive. The only
| change is sun4m requiring >=2.2.7 kernel, this is until we find a
| better solution.
2.2.7? I thought you had the same pro
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 11:38:56AM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> May I suggest that we introduce a package named libc60 that could be
> left installed to ease downgrading when/if we have problems with the
> newest libc?
That's just not possible...been thought of, and there is no real
solution. I
On Wed, May 05, 1999 at 10:46:43AM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> On 4/05, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> | Was this the glibc 2.1.1-2? If so, it should have been fixed, I tested
> | it myself on a sun4m/2.2.5(non-cvs) and Steven tested on a
> | sun4m/2.2.1(stock debian image). If that's the case we need
On 5 May 1999, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> May I suggest that we introduce a package named libc60 that could be
> left installed to ease downgrading when/if we have problems with the
> newest libc?
Yes, please.
Sanjeev "Gha
May I suggest that we introduce a package named libc60 that could be
left installed to ease downgrading when/if we have problems with the
newest libc?
Sam
--
Samuel Tardieu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/05, Ben Collins wrote:
| Was this the glibc 2.1.1-2? If so, it should have been fixed, I tested
| it myself on a sun4m/2.2.5(non-cvs) and Steven tested on a
| sun4m/2.2.1(stock debian image). If that's the case we need to do some
| quick fixing.
Yup: glibc (2.1.1-2) unstable; urgency=low
I
Steve,
I am running a 2.0.35 on a Sparc Classic, updated potato. Running well.
I decided to compile/upgrade to 2.2.7, so downloaded
kernel-source-2.2.7
Ran make-kpkg (took over a day to compile). Installed the .deb, and silo
refused to boot (After uncompressing, machine stops at "Booting Linu
At 16:12 -0400 1999-05-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, the one enigma. The (stock slink) KSH works fine but gives
the following warning each time it is envoked:
ksh: Symbol `sys_siglist' has different size in shared object,
consider re-linking
I downloaded the KSH (slink) source and recomp
11 matches
Mail list logo
