Hiya
in order to install a newer version of lftp in order to get the recursive
put feature... i need to upgrade glibc. Can a lower version of glibc run
concurrently alongside the newer version, or will it replace it altogether
thus requiring upgrading the other packages as well??
thanx
Zane
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 12:33:21PM -0600, Robert Kerr wrote:
> I have a set of vendor-supplied libraries, which were compiled on a RedHat
> 5.2 system, therefor they like glibc2.0. Are there problems with using
> them on a glibc2.1 system (i.e. potato)?
> Thanks
There should be, but that's a case
I have a set of vendor-supplied libraries, which were compiled on a RedHat
5.2 system, therefor they like glibc2.0. Are there problems with using
them on a glibc2.1 system (i.e. potato)?
Thanks
--
-bob
Remember the... the... uhh.
*
acle to release
simpler Oracle version with glibc 2.1 ;-)
--
Sincerely yours, Konstantin Kivi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
;
> 2. I can't start a terminal window in X. My WM of choice
> gives no error messages. xterm just doesn't start.
> If I try gnome-terminal, I get a mesage about not being
> able to log in with the admonishment: If you are using
> Linux 2.2.x with glibc 2.1.x this is probably du
ing
Linux 2.2.x with glibc 2.1.x this is probably due to
incorrectly set up Unix 98 ttys.
I'm thinking these problems might be related, but who
knows. I would greatly appreciate anyone's insight on
getting this straightened out.
Thanks,
-lee
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 23-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Andor Dirner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
> > >
> > > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat
> > > compatibility libraries to be able install it,
On 23-Mar-00, 18:08 (CST), Andor Dirner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
> >
> > The other one it breaks is Oracle 8.0, and one needs to convert Redhat
> > compatibility libraries to be able install it, and a patch from Oracle.
> >
FWIW, I'm running Oracle 8
Hello all
I'm near from upgrading my Slink to Potato using dselect's FTP, but I'm
afraid if it can drive my system _really_ bad (broken).
I tried it six months ago, and the result was a reinstalling Slink from
CDs.
Did anyone try this way? Worked fine?
Taupter
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> > > > Why not gli
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Robert Varga wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> > > > Why not glib
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Eric Weigel wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> > > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros
> >
). Thing is, it works on RH6.1
and SuSE 6.3 , both glibc-2.1
Petr Cech
--
Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.{org,cz}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> > Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> > Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros
> > have?
>
> They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so
On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 02:42:26AM -0300, Taupter wrote:
> Strange. If i can remember, Slink has libc5 compatibility libs.
> Why not glibc2.0 compatibility libs for potato, as RH-based distros
> have?
They're both libc 6.0 -- how would ld.so know which one you wanted?
Any apps which run on 6.0 and
> > It seems we don't have such "compatibility" packages for Debian;
> > what am I missing? Could one install slink's glibc2.0 in a
> > non-obstrusive way under potato or woody?
>
> Maybe you could use alien and install the rpm? I thing potato and
> woody is totally commited to 2.1
>
r RedHat have reported the same problem, and they
> have fixed it installing "compatibility" packages containing
> glibc2.0. To be exact, they mention installing the
> compat-glibc-5.2-2.0.7.1 rpm and adding a
> -L/usr/i386-glibc20-linux/lib to the end of the compile line
nstall a free (as in gratis, not speech) F compiler, which needs glibc2.0
and won't work with glibc2.1. Other people with Suse or RedHat have
reported the same problem, and they have fixed it installing
"compatibility" packages containing glibc2.0. To be exact, they mention
installing t
On Fri, Mar 10, 2000 at 03:41:55PM +0100, Bruno Boettcher wrote:
>
> Is there a chance that the standard netscape package will use the
> glibc-version? i have to use it since i need the java1.2 plugin, and i would
> like to use the packaged version instead of a locally installed one
Hello,
Is there a chance that the standard netscape package will use the
glibc-version? i have to use it since i need the java1.2 plugin, and i would
like to use the packaged version instead of a locally installed one
--
ciao bboett
Ron Hale-Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Haven't heard anyone speak up yet. I too have a machine that cannot
> afford
> much downtime, so I don't want to mess with potato. Does anyone have a
> recommendation for safely getting the latest glibc running under
&
>From rwhe Thu Mar 9 03:10:10 2000
Return-Path:
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by apocalypse.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA12524;
Thu, 9 Mar 2000 03:10:08 -0500
From: Ron Hale-Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to get glibc
Any tips on how to do this for a production machine?
I want to get MySQL and PHP3 up and running on this system using the latest
versions. I can't use the .deb for PHP because I'm running a Raven secured
Apache and need to compile in the DSO from the PHP source to make it work
with raven.
Th
can't
find anything...
Does anybody have an idea?
I have, Kernel: 2.0.38
gcc: egcs-2.91.66
make: 3.77
**Error Message***
make[1]: Entering directory
`/usr/local/src/glibc/glibc-2.1.2/db2'gcc -nostdlib -nostartfiles -o
ma
can't
find anything...
Does anybody have an idea?
I have, Kernel: 2.0.38
gcc: egcs-2.91.66
make: 3.77
**Error Message***
make[1]: Entering directory
`/usr/local/src/glibc/glibc-2.1.2/db2'gcc -nostdlib -nostartfiles -o
ma
Does anybody have an idea?
I have, Kernel: 2.0.38
gcc: egcs-2.91.66
make: 3.77
**Error Message***
make[1]: Entering directory
`/usr/local/src/glibc/glibc-2.1.2/db2'gcc -nostdlib -nostartfiles -o
makedb -Wl,-dynamic-linker=/lib/ld-linux
debians,
I've installed kernel 2.3.47 on my frozen potato box in order to take
advantage of large files (>2GB). I can run a test in the box, and it
sucessfully creates a 16GB file. ls sees it as a 64MB file, however.
When I asked Matti (author of the large file portion), he referred me to
the l
> "Fred" == Fred R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Fred> So for now, what should I do? Should I just force it to ignor
Fred> dependencies? Or may be someone can point me to the location
Fred> of binary file for libc6. I can try to install then
Fred> manually. But I really need libc6 or I'm
potato, becuase apt-get cannot resolve the predependency loop.
>
> Shao.
>
> David Z. Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Fred R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Fred> I'm trying to install the package to upgrade the glibc 2.1.3 on my
> > Fred> machine but I
apt-get cannot resolve the predependency loop.
Shao.
David Z. Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Fred R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Fred> I'm trying to install the package to upgrade the glibc 2.1.3 on my
> Fred> machine but I get a message that I need to install debinnutils
Fred R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Fred> I'm trying to install the package to upgrade the glibc 2.1.3 on my
Fred> machine but I get a message that I need to install debinnutils first. So
Fred> I tried to install that package and it tells me the I need to upgrade my
Fred> li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred R.) wrote:
>I'm trying to install the package to upgrade the glibc 2.1.3 on my
>machine but I get a message that I need to install debinnutils first. So
>I tried to install that package and it tells me the I need to upgrade my
>libc to >=2.1. So wha
Hi,
I'm trying to install the package to upgrade the glibc 2.1.3 on my
machine but I get a message that I need to install debinnutils first. So
I tried to install that package and it tells me the I need to upgrade my
libc to >=2.1. So what do I do now? Which comes first chicken or e
Hi all,
I've got the latest versions of libc6 and libc6-dev, but when I try to
compile (for example) gnome-napster, I get quite a load of error messages
like this:
/usr/include/bits/string2.h: In function `__strpbrk_c3':
/usr/include/bits/string2.h:1004: `size_t' undeclared (first use in this
fu
First about debian dependencies:
if I remember right, I ran apt-get over the libc-upgraded system
to fix broken dependencies. I am not sure, but maybe I used
a dpkg --force option to drop unstable libc and libc-dev. If it
comes down to that I would try to compile glibc 2.1 with =unchanged=
(!) slin
there anyone that succseed to insatll Glibc 2.1 in Debian 2.1 Slink?
> [...]
Greetings,
sure is. I upgraded via downloading and installing the .debs from unstable
using dpkg.
I also have installed a self-compiled glibc 2.1 in /usr/local for developing
purposes, however I had to upgrade t
On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 03:34:09AM -0500, Robert Beranek wrote:
> Hello!
> Is there anyone that succseed to insatll Glibc 2.1 in Debian 2.1 Slink?
> [...]
Greetings,
sure is. I upgraded via downloading and installing the .debs from unstable
using dpkg.
I also have installed a self
Hello!
Is there anyone that succseed to insatll Glibc 2.1 in Debian 2.1 Slink? If
so, PLEASE help me!!
Thanks,
Robert
__
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 21:06:36 +0100, J Horacio MG wrote:
> This question is with regard to both glibc-crypt-2.1.2.tar.gz and
> patch-int-2.2.10.4.gz, are these included in a "normal" Debian
> distribution?
glibc-crypt: yes (it does hashing, not encryption).
patch-int: on no
Say I do a "normal" Debian (or any other Linux OS) install with, eg.
glibc2.1 and kernel2.10 (or any other glibc and kernel), would these be
the complete library and kernel?
This question is with regard to both glibc-crypt-2.1.2.tar.gz and
patch-int-2.2.10.4.gz, are these included in
As I understand, Debian slink comes with MD5 crypt because of export
restrictions. I want to have a real crypt so I went to a german ftp
server, found glibc 2.0.7 source and I downloaded it. Of course the real
crypt is in a separate tar file. I downloaded that too and unpacked it
in the glibc
*- On 13 Oct, Brian J. Stults wrote about "debs to reinstall glibc "
> Can someone tell me which deb files are needed to reinstall glibc? I'm
> using potato. If you need more information, just let me know. I assume
> I can just download the files and then use dpkg to rei
Can someone tell me which deb files are needed to reinstall glibc? I'm
using potato. If you need more information, just let me know. I assume
I can just download the files and then use dpkg to reinstall.
Thanks,
Brian
--
Brian J. Stults
Doctoral Candidate
University at Albany - SUNY
*- On 21 Sep, Manuel Arenaz Silva wrote about "Library glibc"
> Hello,
>
> I want to install an MP3 player. I want to download it from
> "www.freeamp.org", but I have to chose between to configurations:
>
> * FreeAmp_1.3.1_for_Linux2.0.x_glic2.0_Int
On Tue, 21 Sep 1999, Manuel Arenaz Silva wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I want to install an MP3 player. I want to download it from
> "www.freeamp.org", but I have to chose between to configurations:
>
> * FreeAmp_1.3.1_for_Linux2.0.x_glic2.0_Intel_x86
> * FreeAmp_1.3.1_for_Linux2.0.x_glic2.1_Intel_x86
Hello,
I want to install an MP3 player. I want to download it from
"www.freeamp.org", but I have to chose between to configurations:
* FreeAmp_1.3.1_for_Linux2.0.x_glic2.0_Intel_x86
* FreeAmp_1.3.1_for_Linux2.0.x_glic2.1_Intel_x86
How can I know which version must I download? I have installed
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:37:34AM -0300, Guilherme Soares Zahn wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> unfortunately, as every attempt to make my programs work under glibc
> 2.1.x (now I'm not even sure if it's a glibc problem or if the problem
> is on PGI's most recent F77 c
On 14-Sep-99 Guilherme Soares Zahn wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> unfortunately, as every attempt to make my programs work under glibc
> 2.1.x (now I'm not even sure if it's a glibc problem or if the problem
> is on PGI's most recent F77 compiler, but it doesn't
Hi there,
unfortunately, as every attempt to make my programs work under glibc
2.1.x (now I'm not even sure if it's a glibc problem or if the problem
is on PGI's most recent F77 compiler, but it doesn't really matter, as
I'm running out of time), I decided to downg
Stephen Pitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 05:28:26PM +0400, Alexander Zhuckov wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Can I safely compile and install glibc 2.1.2 (and respective dev
> > packages) from potato on slink?
>
> Why not just install th
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 05:28:26PM +0400, Alexander Zhuckov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Can I safely compile and install glibc 2.1.2 (and respective dev
> packages) from potato on slink?
Why not just install the glibc 2.1 package from potato instead of
building it yourself?
--
Stephen
Hi!
Can I safely compile and install glibc 2.1.2 (and respective dev
packages) from potato on slink?
--
Alexander Zhuckov [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2:5030/518.50
i meant glib sorry, and the file name on the site ends with .deb doesn't
that mean it's a legitimate package?
Pollywog wrote:
> Did you really need glibc or did you mean glib ?
>
> Don't get glibc if you really meant glib. That mistake might break your
> system.
>
> --
> Andrew
I believe it was Wonko who wrote:
>> since my other question was answered so promptly (thank btw) i'm asking
>> another one.
>> how do i apt-get glibc? i set the ftp in sources.list "deb
>> ftp://ftp.gtk.org pub gtk
>> v1.2 binary DEBIAN stable and type i
sorry didn't realize i was e-mailing only you, thanks
Brian Servis wrote:
> *- On 4 Aug, wonko wrote about "how do i apt-get glibc?"
> > since my other question was answered so promptly (thank btw) i'm asking
> > another one.
> > how do i apt-get
*- On 4 Aug, wonko wrote about "how do i apt-get glibc?"
> since my other question was answered so promptly (thank btw) i'm asking
> another one.
> how do i apt-get glibc? i set the ftp in sources.list "deb ftp://ftp.gtk.org
> pub gtk
> v1.2 binary DEBIAN sta
For what I've been able to work out the xlib6g package is responsible for
the netscape bug where closing a window crashes the whole thing with a bus
error. I downgraded from xlib6g_3.3.3.1-10 to xlib6g_3.3.2.3a and netscape
seems a lot happier now (touch wood). YMMV.
Cheers
Dave
PS Should I f
Bill Shui <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> and I really like to upgrade glibc to 2.1
> but I followed the instruction from the GNU site, downloaded all the
> any suggestions?
Yes: Next time use the debian packages from unstable when you want to
upgrade anything.
Hi,
I have a Debian Hamm installed on my i386 machine, using glibc 2.0
and I really like to upgrade glibc to 2.1
but I followed the instruction from the GNU site, downloaded all the
linux-threads, crypt, binutils, etc... and compiled binutils statically
and then installed
As the subject says. 2.0.7t-1 and 2.0.7u sounds pretty compatible
to me. Right?
Thanks!
--
/ Peter Schuller
---
PGP userID: 0x5584BD98 or 'Peter Schuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://hem.passagen.se/petersch
Help create a free Java based operating system - www.jos.
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Sebastian Canagaratna wrote:
> I am using slink. Star Office 5.1 requires libc-2.0.7.so
> ( which I find is included in slink ) and libthread-0.7.so
> ( glibc-2.0.7-7-7.i386.rpm) which I am unable to find.
> Could somebody suggest where I could find the req
I am using slink. Star Office 5.1 requires libc-2.0.7.so
( which I find is included in slink ) and libthread-0.7.so
( glibc-2.0.7-7-7.i386.rpm) which I am unable to find.
Could somebody suggest where I could find the required
.deb?
Thanks.
Sebastian Canagaratna
Department of Chemistry
Ohio
Hello,
I am currently considering upgrading my hamm system to kernel 2.2.x and glibc
2.1 (because of IBM's JVM port :).
My questions is, has anyone tried this? Which packages can I expect to have
to upgrade? What might brake? The kernel is no biggie, I know (since I can
just boot the old o
On Wed, Jun 02, 1999 at 04:53:46PM -0500, Oleg Krivosheev was heard to say:
>
> Hi, All
>
> just tried to debug my MT stuff using latest potato stuff and
> did not succeed. Is MT debugging lost in transition? I was able
> to debug my stuff on slink with glibc 2.0.7 and g
Hi, All
just tried to debug my MT stuff using latest potato stuff and
did not succeed. Is MT debugging lost in transition? I was able
to debug my stuff on slink with glibc 2.0.7 and gdb 4.17
What package to blame: gdb 4.18, glibc 2.1 or kernel 2.2?
thanks a lot for any help
regards
OK
as I know) implemented in ver. 2.1.
> Can I run the normal system with glibc 2.1 and compile the programs to
> use glibc 2.0 ?
> How do I configure the linker ? What libs from 2.0 do I need ?
> I'm glad for every suggestion.
>
Complex at best. Perhaps if you compiled a version a
I run the normal system with glibc 2.1 and compile the programs to
use glibc 2.0 ?
How do I configure the linker ? What libs from 2.0 do I need ?
I'm glad for every suggestion.
cu,
Juergen
bian.org
> Subject: Re: StarOffice 5.1 SOLVES Glibc 2.1 (potato) incompatibility
> Resent-Date: 20 May 1999 17:07:42 -
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
>
> Anyone tryed it on Slink yet??
>
>
> On 20-May-99 Chris
Thu, 20 May 1999, Bernard de Rubinat wrote:
> StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it will
> complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7, just ignore as you have glibc
> 2.1 (with potato).
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Bernard
On 20-May-99 Brian Schramm wrote:
> Anyone tryed it on Slink yet??
It ran well under Slink, but I broke my system when I reinstalled it under
potato and ran the libc6 script that came with it. Yes I know, I should not
have run that script. It was intended for glibc not glibc2.
--
Andrew
> >
>> > I'm at 75% -- woo hoo!
>> >
>> > Sean
>> >
>> > Pollywog wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 20-May-99 Bernard de Rubinat wrote:
>> > > > StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it
> will
&g
gt; >
> > > On 20-May-99 Bernard de Rubinat wrote:
> > > > StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it
will
> > > > complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7, just ignore as you have
glibc
> > > > 2.1 (with potato).
As a
gt; > Pollywog wrote:
> >
> > > On 20-May-99 Bernard de Rubinat wrote:
> > > > StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it
> > > > will
> > > > complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7, just ignore as yo
Pollywog wrote:
>
> > On 20-May-99 Bernard de Rubinat wrote:
> > > StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it
> > > will
> > > complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7, just ignore as you have glibc
> > > 2.1 (with
e:
> > > StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it
> > > will
> > > complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7, just ignore as you have glibc
> > > 2.1 (with potato).
> >
> > I just found the download site, but it is c
no it's not, I'm downloading SO5.1 right now . . .
I'm at 75% -- woo hoo!
Sean
Pollywog wrote:
> On 20-May-99 Bernard de Rubinat wrote:
> > StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it will
> > complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7,
On 20-May-99 Bernard de Rubinat wrote:
> StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it will
> complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7, just ignore as you have glibc
> 2.1 (with potato).
I just found the download site, but it is closed for a day or so.
--
Andrew
On 20-May-99 Bernard de Rubinat wrote:
> StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it will
> complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7, just ignore as you have glibc
> 2.1 (with potato).
So this new SO works with glibc2?
I will try to find StarOffice URL and
StarOffice 5.1 (just released) works with potato. When you install, it will
complain that it does not find glibc 2.0.7, just ignore as you have glibc
2.1 (with potato).
Best regards,
Bernard
On Sun, May 16, 1999 at 01:03 -0500, Brad Jorsch wrote:
> Before i begin, please CC all replies to
I am unable to access this site
-Oz
Before i begin, please CC all replies to my email address. dyn.cx seems to
be severely broken (or at least their nameserver is hosed), and this
mailbox can't take the onslaught that is debian-user :( ... Anyone know of
any functional free domain hosts?
Sometime two or three weeks ago, we were disc
Those of you who use Applixware and have had problems when you have
glibc 2.1 on your system might like to know that the fix is as follows:
Add this line to your ~/axhome/ax_prof (mine is ax_prof4) file:
axGFSName:tcp/host:7001
Replace 'host' with your machine's hostname.
Th
I upgraded my Slink distribution to glibc 2.1. I had the usual problems
with Applixware and Java, and have just solved the latter by downloading
JDK 1.1.7 for glibc 2.1 from the following site:
http://shell.ncm.com/~kreilede/
The download is 18 MB. It is a tar.gz file and means that JDK does
I am thinking about upgrading my Slink system to glibc 2.1. In fact I
did it when I upgraded an app using apt-get and glibc was also updated -
but I found I couldn't run Applix (I have since found a workaround) and
my JAVA apps.
It now appears that all the new unstable packages are being com
I'm trying to recompile the glibc2 Debian package with pgcc, hopefully
to squeeze out a bit more performance.
I downloaded the *.orig.tar.gz, *.dsc, and *.diff.gz files needed,
then did a "dpkg-sourc -x glibc*.dsc" and everything unpacked okay.
Before I modified anything at all,
ely, it only happens with
> rwin-dows clients, and one AIX one. It doesn't happen with linux.
>
> >This stems from the fact that glibc 2.1 enables use of Unix98 pty's and if
> >/dev/ptmx is present then glibc expects /dev/pts/ to be mounted.
>
> It seems also th
nd mount /dev/pts/ (read the kernel docs)
It has. Then I tried mount -t devpts, but ssh continues to say
"couldn't allocate a pseudo-terminal". Strangely, it only happens with
rwin-dows clients, and one AIX one. It doesn't happen with linux.
>This stems from the fact that g
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 12:03:11PM -0300, Carlos Carvalho wrote:
> I upgraded to the latest unstable, including glibc 2.1, and suddenly
> windows ssh clients, and some unix ones too, started getting "the
> server couldn't allocate a pseudo-terminal". What can I do? It&
I upgraded to the latest unstable, including glibc 2.1, and suddenly
windows ssh clients, and some unix ones too, started getting "the
server couldn't allocate a pseudo-terminal". What can I do? It's not a
problem of all pty's being used.
I tried to recompile sshd to
>
> You must have the right file then. You just rename it adding "glibc2"
> like,
> communicator-v451-export.x86-unknown-linux2.0.tar.gz
>
> to
>
> communicator-v451-export.x86-unknown-linux2.0.glibc2.tar.gz
>
> then install with netscape4.
I wondered if that would work. If I can find it s
On Mon, Apr 05, 1999 at 03:16:11AM -, Pollywog wrote:
> > ftp.netscape.com/pub/communicator/4.51/english/unix/unsupported/linux20-glibc
> > 2/
>
> I believe that is where I downloaded, but it did not appear to be glibc
> because there was no "glibc" in the
Pollywog wrote:
>
> On 05-Apr-99 ktb wrote:
> > Pollywog wrote:
> >>
> >> I thought I downloaded a glibc version of Netscape 4.51 and now I find that
> >> I
> >> do not. I should have been more careful downloading and now I will have to
> >
On 05-Apr-99 ktb wrote:
> Pollywog wrote:
>>
>> I thought I downloaded a glibc version of Netscape 4.51 and now I find that
>> I
>> do not. I should have been more careful downloading and now I will have to
>> see if I can reinstall the old
Pollywog wrote:
>
> I thought I downloaded a glibc version of Netscape 4.51 and now I find that I
> do not. I should have been more careful downloading and now I will have to
> see if I can reinstall the old one, the one with the mailto bug :(
>
> --
> Andrew
I thought I downloaded a glibc version of Netscape 4.51 and now I find that I
do not. I should have been more careful downloading and now I will have to
see if I can reinstall the old one, the one with the mailto bug :(
--
Andrew
[PGP5.0 Key ID 0x5EE61C37]
Toens Bueker wrote:
> subject says it all. Did bytesex.h move to another package? Or was it just
> left behind? :-)
You could use instead. But even better, include .
HTH,
-Remco
Hi *,
subject says it all. Did bytesex.h move to another
package? Or was it just left behind? :-)
By
Töns
--
_o)
/\\ pgp fingerprint: 9B AC A5 CB C8 CC FC DC 25 B5 26 9A 5D 28 C0 3D
_\_V
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>btw, simply backing up a system's conffiles can be done by feeding the
>output of 'cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.conffiles' into tar/cpio/afio etc.
That misses files generated in postinst.
How about something like this:
cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.conffiles
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
conflicts with, libc6. it
also says timezones REQUIRES libc6. Now, i'm no guru, but i don't think
a package should conflict with something it requires.
So how do we fix this?
Colin Telmer wrote:
>
> I am running potato and have glibc 2.1 installed and date reports GMT time
> rat
301 - 400 of 463 matches
Mail list logo
