On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 05:55:17PM +0200, Thomas Buhk wrote: > > locales because the glibc_2.2.5-9.woody.4.deb would be > > missing. I had a > > hm... no problem this morning on several systems, all work fine with > 'apt-get update; apt-get upgrade'
But did locales get removed? There is no glibc deb. The problem is that locales 2.2.5-9.woody.4 depends on glibc-2.2.5-9.woody.4, while libc6 2.2.5-9.woody.4 provides glibc-2.2.5-9. Methinks the naming is getting a bit complicated. Why do we continue to refer to to the GNU C library as both libc6 and glibc? Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
