On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 14:59, Chris McCormick wrote: > At 18:32 7/10/2002 +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote: > > >ls -alF /lib/libc[-.]* > > > >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 888096 Sep 26 02:30 > >/lib/libc-2.1.3.so* > >lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Oct 7 18:17 /lib/libc.so.6 > >-> libc-2.1.3.so* > > Same except i also have libc5 installed. > > > Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold > | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed > |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) > ||/ Name Version Description > >+++-=============================-=============================-========================================================================== > ii tar 1.13.17-2 GNU tar > ii libc6 2.1.3-23 GNU C > Library: Shared libraries and Timezone data > ii dpkg 1.6.15 Package > maintenance system for Debian > ii apt 0.3.19 Advanced > front-end for dpkg > ii gzip 1.2.4-33.1 The GNU > compression utility. > > older version of libc (that's what the system is trying to upgrade, but > dpkg is breaking).
So your package system has libc6 marked as installed but /lib/libc.so.6 is not there. Is that correct? > Everything else is the same. Curious. Isn't that box of yours running > Woody? Shouldn't my libraries reflect the potato versions of these > libraries, not woody ones? I wonder if i have accidentally half-upgraded > and then tried to revert to potato again (might have happened if i put the > wrong sources in by accident one time). No. Thats not my home machine. All that data came from a working potato install. Crispin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
