Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-26 Thread Anthony Campbell
On 25 Aug 2001, John Hasler wrote: > Anthony Campbell wrote: > > Well, this was why I asked the question originally. Dlocate -s says that > > ldso is in the oldlibs section and is optional, yet if you tell apt-get > > to remove it you are told it is essential and you have to remove it > > explicitl

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-25 Thread John Hasler
Anthony Campbell wrote: > Well, this was why I asked the question originally. Dlocate -s says that > ldso is in the oldlibs section and is optional, yet if you tell apt-get > to remove it you are told it is essential and you have to remove it > explicitly. I don't see how it can be both optional an

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-25 Thread Anthony Campbell
On 25 Aug 2001, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:40:06AM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote: > > Well, this was why I asked the question originally. Dlocate -s says that > > ldso is in the oldlibs section and is optional, yet if you tell apt-get > > to remove it you are told it is esse

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-25 Thread Dave Sherohman
On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 09:40:06AM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote: > Well, this was why I asked the question originally. Dlocate -s says that > ldso is in the oldlibs section and is optional, yet if you tell apt-get > to remove it you are told it is essential and you have to remove it > explicitly.

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-25 Thread Anthony Campbell
On 24 Aug 2001, John Hasler wrote: > Aquila writes: > > ... the one in the (obsolete) ldso package is an old version (1.9.11?) > > and is for libc5... > > The most recent version of the ldso package is also 'Priority: optional'. > The libc5 package depends on it. > -- > John Hasler > [EMAIL PROTE

RE: Do I need ldso

2001-08-24 Thread Brooks R. Robinson
Try removing it! It askes you to EXPLICITLY say yes I want to remove it. > -Original Message- > From: Anthony Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 24 August, 2001 12:16 PM > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Do I need ldso > > > Deborphan says there is nothing d

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-24 Thread John Hasler
Aquila writes: > ... the one in the (obsolete) ldso package is an old version (1.9.11?) > and is for libc5... The most recent version of the ldso package is also 'Priority: optional'. The libc5 package depends on it. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-24 Thread Aquila
On 24 Aug 2001 12:37:27 -0500, Nathan E Norman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:15:42PM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote: > > Deborphan says there is nothing dependent on ldso but it is nevertheless > > classified as essential. > > You only need ldso if you want to be able to use code which is lin

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-24 Thread John Hasler
Anthony writes: > Deborphan says there is nothing dependent on ldso... Debian policy says that nothing needs to depend on any 'essential' package because all 'essential' packages are guaranteed to be present, and the purpose of dependencies is to pull in depended-upon packages. > Do I really need

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-24 Thread Nathan E Norman
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:15:42PM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote: > Deborphan says there is nothing dependent on ldso but it is nevertheless > classified as essential. You only need ldso if you want to be able to use code which is linked againt dynamic libraries. Try this: cd /usr/bin; file *

Re: Do I need ldso

2001-08-24 Thread Dave Sherohman
On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:15:42PM +0100, Anthony Campbell wrote: > Deborphan says there is nothing dependent on ldso but it is nevertheless > classified as essential. > > Do I really need it? $ man ld.so ld.so(8) ld.so(8) NAME ld.so/ld-linu