On Jun 16, Alex Yukhimets wrote > > I am sorry to say, but you are wrong. Even on this list there were > several postings regarding this matter. There are several known > problems and who knows how many unknown. You just can't afford to > experiment with "production" system this way. Anyway, I could take some > burden on myself to compile libc5 counterparts, but on my 486DX2/66 with > 2k/sec connection it would take years.
Well, if it really is a production machine (people yell if it goes down, etc.) shouldn't it be tracking stable instead of unstable anyways? I don't think that kind of change (libc5 -> libc6) can't be made without some amount of instability and experimenting.... well, unless we get only perfect developpers who recompile all their packages for libc6 at the same time. :) Christian
pgpBkarpSIaRQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
