I know this is against the netiquette, but you ask on the list, you keep the answers on the list, PLEASE.
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 03:53:58PM +0000, Lance Tagliapietra wrote: > Hi Christian, > > Thanks for replying to my inquiry. My information is different than > what you provided. When I installed Woody, I did tell the installer > that I wanted the security updates when I installed Woody. > > My Apt sources list: > #deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main non-free contrib > #deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main non-free contrib > #deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib > non-free > #deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib > non-free > > #deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free > > deb http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main non-free contrib > deb-src http://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main non-free contrib > deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib non-free > deb-src http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib > non-free > > deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free > > ***end*** > > My tools don't tell me that a 2.3.* is available, just 2.2.*. Are you > running stuff from testing? For example: [...] Of course I am running testing, plus unstable in the build chroots. My sources.list has this (plus a little more for sources and incoming) deb http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/debian/ woody main non-free contrib deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ woody/updates main contrib non-free deb http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/debian/ testing main non-free contrib deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US testing/non-US main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ testing/updates main contrib non-free deb http://ftp.lug.udel.edu/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US unstable/non-US main contrib non-free > Where did you get the 2.3.* packages. I asked the question, as usually > updates don't break things. Now weather it is a bug that the prerequisites > to a security update are in stable or not I'm not sure. But that is what > I wanted to point out. If you think something is wrong with the arrangement of the libc6 packages, I think you should report a bug against ftp.d.o. On my box everything looks ok, ie libc6 and libc6-dev 2.2.5-11.5 are both available from http://security.debian.org woody/updates/main Maybe you should replace "stable" by "woody", but stable is a symlink to woody on security.d.o, so that should not matter. > I do a bit of compiling on this system, > so I did pull in the developers packages (C/C++). > How did you pick up the 2.3.*? If you add testing to your sources.list, you should get all packages from testing (some might require a dist-upgrade though). You can also configure apt to make packages from testing and unstable available, but not install them by default. See pinning in apt/preferences and Default-Release in apt.conf. Then you can install packages from testing by adding /testing after the package name. Very nice if you just want to upgrade a couple of packages. Christian
