Here's a slightly old thread I'm continuing; I'm very curious how people are dealing with this. I usually follow 'unstable,' in part because it largely is quite stable. I hold off on things that look like more trouble, like libc6. Much advice recommends not using it yet on important systems. I tried to avoid it, but fell for ldso 1.9.2, not realizing it (apparently) commits me to the libc6 development environment. I have not installed libc6 yet, and right now my compiles fail. All the binaries generated give "No such file or directory" errors, because they can't link, I believe. I hesitate to go ahead and install the libc6 packages, though, if things might become more unstable. I'd like to build a new kernel at the moment, and wouldn't want to do so with a C library that wasn't ready for prime time.
I tried downgrading ldso to ldso_1.8.10-2. That didn't work at all; when dpkg finished my linker was blown out, and I had to go to the rescue disk. I'm not sure how the new environment should look; what packages I'll need, and if they're all in place yet; the 'altdev' packages are continuing to appear. Are people compiling stable binaries & kernels with libc6, or with it installed but using the altdev-libc5 stuff? If everyone were as uncertain as I am, I think I'd be seeing more discussion on the topic, so maybe I'm up a tree somewhere :-) But I'd love some opinions on whether, with libc6, we're getting much more 'unstable' than we usually are. Thanks all, loving Debian as always, Ed Donovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
