On 1 Nov 1996, Steve Dunham wrote:
> Are you sure? I remember that upgrading the kernel broke some versions
> of ps. Was it really the 5.4 upgrade or a kernel upgrade? When you
> switched back did the old ps start working again?
I believe it was the 5.4 upgrade. A "friend" decided to upgrade m
On 31 Oct 1996, Guy Maor wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > While I agree with this, why does it seem that recompiling some
> > packages "fixes" the problem?
>
> Which packages specifically?
>
> Daniel Stringfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Its the way the LIBC changes s
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Partly because the compiler is also using the target library. This allows
> the compiler to generation code that works with the target library. Thus
> the program gets "bugs" fixed by this process.
What?? You're saying the output of the compiler is a fu
On Wednesday, 30 October, 1996 22:49, Daniel
Stringfield[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why can't anyone understand this? This was a 3
> day thing for me when I first did it, and wow, gee, we have more than 3
> days till monday! I think if all the package
> maintainers would just go and recom
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Brian C. White wrote:
> No it isn't. Rex is intended to be release 1.2 of Debian. "Unstable" is
> the latest stuff and will be pointing to "bo" in the near future. Because
> of the problems that have been claimed against the new libc5, I don't see
> any reason to include it
> > So, I think libc 5.4.7 should be removed from rex and downgrade to 5.2.x.
>
> Thats the point of REX isn't it? to be the latest of the stuff... if you
> upgrade, and RECOMPILE against that libc5, your problems will go away.
> I have had NO PROBLEMS with that version! None! You must be runnin
6 matches
Mail list logo
