> Should it not be possible to run an hamm/slink mixed system. I think
> this
> is the same as the libc5/libc6 situation on i386 an m68k. should the
> hamm
> libc6 not have been libc5 instead ?
You know that libc5 is incompatible to libc6!? Ok, let me explain:
libc6 (2.0.x) is compatible with glibc-2.1.x (2.0.94 at the moment). So
people on architectures with a real libc6 doesn't have any problems.
Our old libc6 is 1.99 and this one is incompatible. Sorry, but it is so!
I think we can make a workaround for this (like sparc or see bincompat on
any redhat mirror), but then any release time will grow up.
> Which is ?
A substitution from dpkg-deb parameters, but only for a 2.1 system.
> Funny, how do i install the slink libc packages without a working dpkg ?
> i have
> only a small hd (~100MB only and no compiler installed)
Make your own tarball. Extract the packages with:
for i in *.deb
do
ar -x $i
tar xfz data.tar.gz
done
But then you have no dpkg-database.
> a thanks, i didn't know that. it is part of libc6 then ? should we not
> create a ldso package with this file for compatibility ? Would be nice
> to have
> a debian-powerpc faq or something like that, with infos of this kind.
Step-by-Step. :-) i cannot make all at the same time, the day has only
24 hours, somethimes i must sleep, .... But all on the TODO list.
> i think the lack of a base.tar.gz make the test procedure more
> difficult.
Espy???? When is the base-tarball available???
It seems, i'm the only one with a working 2.1 system. There is
another one but only with a chroot environment.
AND: i can also make mistakes. If i had done so, please
mail me.
Bye,
Hartmut
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
