On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, joost witteveen wrote: > > Now there's a rather strong warning against downgrading ldso to version > > 1.8.x, which is the option I'm looking at here, since I can't install > > libc6 without gutting my system, making it near impossible to do what I > > wanted to do in the first place, that is to compile a source package. > > Well, I more-or-less understand why you wanted to upgrade ld.so, and > why the upgrade didn't do what you wanted to. But I still fail to > see why you want to downgrade ld.so. Really the hamm ld.so doesn't > conflict/depend on anything in bo/hamm, so you should be able to > use the hamm ld.so safely on a bo system. Really, unless you have > _very_ good reasons to downgrade your ld.so, *don't* do it! >
Perhaps I didn't summarize well the response I got wrt my first post in this thread - with the ldso from hamm, I can't use the dpkg-shlibdeps from bo - the ldd included in ldso 1.9.x uses a different output format. So, if I want to compile some debian package I'm forced to choose between going full-hamm and taking days to download hamm versions of all the *-dev packages that are now incompatible, or downgrading ldso. > > > Why is this warning there? > I think my mantra should be from now on "be patient". I foolishly tried a downgrade without waiting for a response. Ouch. Fortunately, I had a rescue boot disk and could fix things, but... Suffice it to say that all the dire consequenses you mention were visited upon me, and I'll be compiling a bunch of staticly linked versions of the essential utilities soon. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
