found 669172 2.13-29
thanks
On 2012-04-18 00:38 +0200, Adam Conrad wrote:
> The reason this fails in -27 as well as -28 is because it has
> nothing to do with -28, it just got triggered for people by a
> new eglibc upload, period.
>
> The real bug here is that dpkg has decided that referring to
>
Hi!
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 22:38:21 +, Adam Conrad wrote:
> The real bug here is that dpkg has decided that referring to
> multi-arch:same packages without the :arch suffix is bad, wrong
> and evil, and eglibc sprinkles "dpkg -L LIBC" and such all
> over its maintainer scripts without adding an
The reason this fails in -27 as well as -28 is because it has
nothing to do with -28, it just got triggered for people by a
new eglibc upload, period.
The real bug here is that dpkg has decided that referring to
multi-arch:same packages without the :arch suffix is bad, wrong
and evil, and eglibc s
Source: libc6
Version: 2.13-28
Severity: grave
Upgrading libc6 from 2.13-27 to 2.13-28 failed for me on amd64 as follows:
Preparing to replace libc6:amd64 2.13-27 (using libc6_2.13-28_amd64.deb) ...
dpkg: error processing libc6_2.13-28_amd64.deb (--install):
subprocess new pre-installation scrip
4 matches
Mail list logo
