| Jeff Abrahamson on 25 Dec 2003 22:01:01 -0500 |
|
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:08:24PM -0500, sean finney wrote: > [38 lines, 274 words, 1600 characters] Top characters: etainsro > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:57:27AM -0500, Jeff Abrahamson wrote: > > The big question, though, is how to determine if those things that > > would be removed (mutt, gnucash, several dozen others) will be > > reinstalled later after the glibc update and all. Right now, > > dist-upgrade is saying no and upgrade is saying they are held back. > > the packages are held back because the newer versions probably depend > on the newer version of libc, but the newer version of libc can't be > installed without removing the current packages that would conflict > with it. kind of a circular argument, but i think there's a way around it. BTW, I did an upgrade, didn't solve the problem, so I started doing apt-get install on individual things. First one caused a glibc upgrade. When that was done, everything else was happy to upgrade. Weird only that the dependency graph couldn't get around that. -- Jeff Jeff Abrahamson <http://www.purple.com/jeff/> GPG fingerprint: 1A1A BA95 D082 A558 A276 63C6 16BF 8C4C 0D1D AE4B Attachment:
pgp8XyCmnrjIf.pgp
|
|