[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 08/06/13 16:12, bad apple wrote: > On 08/06/13 16:08, Simon Waters wrote: >> $ apt-cache policy libc6 >> libc6: >> Installed: 2.13-38 >> Candidate: 2.13-38 >> Version table: >> *** 2.13-38 0 >> 500 http://http.debian.net/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages >> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status >> >> > > Weird... but if you installed from the raring ubuntu repo, did apt not > complain about your libc6 version being < 2.14? I built the debs from the github for the Debian packages, I don't touch Ubuntu repositories, and what little I've seen of Ubuntu recently doesn't inspire me to try any time soon, but I might just have been spoilt by the hard working DDs, or place too high a premium on having self consistent and working debs in my distros repositories. The days of trying to get Redhat 7 and Redhat 9 to do serious stuff, and having to build so much from source, and then keep it upto date, really put me off building stuff from source. Possibly too much as I should really package some odds and sods we have at work as Debian packages, but never really got into the building packages thing. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq