On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 02:10:20PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
>
> > > If you need your machine for "real work" then you shouldn't be running
> > > unstable.
> >
> > If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
> > debian i
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 01:10:44PM -0800, David Bristel wrote:
> This is a good point, and it actually leads to an interesting idea
> for a package that would take care of this issue. Now, this is NOT
> an easy project, but, what about a package that has a list of the
> config files for ALL the pa
Seth,
If you want support information like this sugar-coated, you can write it
yourself, you can run it through debian-publicity first, you can make it
however you want. I really don't care. Just so *someone* writes it and
posts it to the appropriate lists. That's being part of the solution.
--
R
>> If you need your machine for "real work" then you shouldn't be running
>> unstable.
> If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
> debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
> work on systems which aren't appropriate for real work.
I agree wh
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 02:19:05PM -0500, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
> If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
> debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
> work on systems which aren't appropriate for real work.
>
> Think about it.
S
EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Edward Betts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on
> hold? Get ldso from slink...
> Resent-Date: 17 Mar 1999 20:22:15 -
>
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
> Okay, let's not turn this into a flame war. My point is that
> breakages in unstable are *REALLY BAD THINGS*.
I have no intention of flaming anybody; from my standpoint, at least,
everything I say is sober and reasonable. Everyone else's opini
> > > If you need your machine for "real work" then you shouldn't be running
> > > unstable.
> >
> > If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
> > debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
> > work on systems which aren't appropriate for real
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
> > If you need your machine for "real work" then you shouldn't be running
> > unstable.
>
> If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
> debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
> work on syste
> > May be these chickens are people who have some work to do. These sarcasms
> > or
> > those of Edward Betts will not convince people that Debian is a serious
> > distribution, intended for real work.
> >
>
> If you need your machine for "real work" then you shouldn't be running
> unstable.
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 11:16:18AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Sunday 14 March 1999, at 16 h 57, the keyboard of Robert Woodcock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Those of you who are tracking unstable but are too chicken to install the
> > new glibc 2.1 may have noticed that your ldd
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 11:16:18AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> May be these chickens are people who have some work to do. These sarcasms or
> those of Edward Betts will not convince people that Debian is a serious
> distribution, intended for real work.
Quite frankly, unstable isn't some
On Sunday 14 March 1999, at 16 h 57, the keyboard of Robert Woodcock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those of you who are tracking unstable but are too chicken to install the
> new glibc 2.1 may have noticed that your ldd has disappeared.
May be these chickens are people who have some work to do. T
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 02:44:51PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 04:57:05PM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or
> > actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1.
>
> so what's likely to break if i upgrade to glibc
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 02:44:51PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 04:57:05PM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> > The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or
> > actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1.
>
> so what's likely to break if i upgrade to glibc
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 02:44:51PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or
> > actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1.
>
> so what's likely to break if i upgrade to glibc 2.1? will i still be
> left with a (mostly) usable system?
>
> (i
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 04:57:05PM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or
> actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1.
so what's likely to break if i upgrade to glibc 2.1? will i still be
left with a (mostly) usable system?
(i'm willing t
Those of you who are tracking unstable but are too chicken to install the
new glibc 2.1 may have noticed that your ldd has disappeared.
That's because /usr/bin/ldd moved from the ldso package to the libc6
package. Therefore if you're using a new ldso package and an old libc6
package, you won't hav
18 matches
Mail list logo
