> David Baron:
> > Luckily, using the live-CD, I was able to download and re-install the*
> > "testing" packages for libc6 and friends and finally get my system
> > working* again.
> What problem are you referring to? The breakage from the missing
> symlinks on amd64? That issue has been fixed some weeks ago.
The problem was flagged as a bug and then no longer appeared. Partial installation. The error message I got was that an alleged "non-dpkg-owned" library was present, too dangerous to update. However, some of the packages were indeed updated. The resulting mix was not operational for x-windows and some other less critical programs.
I am running 686 (32-bit) on a P4.
(Since half these files are symlinks, missing symlinks in such critical packages are inexcusable, I think, but that was not my problem.)
> > OK:
> > 1. Unstable can sometimes get broken. I accept that.
> > 2. However, libc6 stuff is so critical that any upgrade posted must be*
> > installable and operational. Some folks might not recover.
> Then they shouldn't run unstable.
Yup. But they already had it installed and running without much ado for ages.
> > Since the current packages only partially installed last attempt, I am
> > afraid* to upgrade any of this now. What is the status in reality?
> Works for me (on amd64). What's your specific problem? Which version are
> you on, which do you try to install and how does it fail?
I supposed I could try again. Since I manually dpkg-downgraded to the testing packages, there should really be no non-dpkg library around. Since I had to fix this stuff manually a long while back, maybe there was some file I copied to /lib. Still, should have given me the choice to abort all of it or go ahead. Worst case would have been no worse.
If it fails to totally install again, I still have the testing packages to which to downgrade immediately this time. I would only touch the x-stuff if it succeeds since their dependencies on the libc6 and friends are critical. Or maybe wait till the next upgrade?