On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 21:51, Blars Blarson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:39:13PM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
> > There is no point just trying to pin the blame on arbitrary packages.
> > The fact that libstdc++2.10-dev won't configure is a symptom of the
> > problem, not the cause.
>
> I
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:39:13PM +, Philip Blundell wrote:
> There is no point just trying to pin the blame on arbitrary packages.
> The fact that libstdc++2.10-dev won't configure is a symptom of the
> problem, not the cause.
I don't consider "package that failed install" arbitrary.
> > >
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 21:07, Blars Blarson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 06:11:52PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > I don't think this is related to libstdc++2.10-dev (a dev package not
> > containing any shared libs).
>
> As I said, the apt maintainer wasn't willing to accept the bug as
> the
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 06:11:52PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I don't think this is related to libstdc++2.10-dev (a dev package not
> containing any shared libs).
As I said, the apt maintainer wasn't willing to accept the bug as
their fault. Since libstdc++2.10-dev fails install and seems to
I don't think this is related to libstdc++2.10-dev (a dev package not
containing any shared libs).
> First significant bug is:
>
> Preparing to replace libstdc++2.10-dev 1:2.95.2-13 (using
> .../libstdc++2.10-dev_1%3a2.95.4-1_i386.deb) ...
> perl: /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.2' not found (r
5 matches
Mail list logo
