Package: libc6
Version: 2.13-4
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Problem is that, whatever be the offending file, the only alternatives are to
go ahead anyway or abort ALL upgrades. On my system, six packages are pulled
with lib6 upgrades. The mix of new and old will crash out X,
On Thursday 14 Sivan 5771 00:25:42 you wrote:
> reassign 630608 libc6 2.13-7
> quit
>
> Hi David,
>
> David Baron wrote:
> > After upgrading lib6 to current Sid (-7), everything, I mean everything
> > segfaults. System will boot up very normally but as soon a
On Sunday 17 Sivan 5771 02:22:46 Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> David Baron wrote:
> (out of order for convenience)
>
> > Note that there is no "root." I have a working /lib with (mostly) testing
> > libc6 et al packages and lib-sid which has the -7
A very similar bug reported years back. Culprit was libc6-i686. Bug#586241.
Relevant?
I was looking at the content of my /lib variations. Very interesting.
The testing one I am using now las libc.so.6 -> libc-2.13.so dated May 12.
The "sid" one I copied from the segfaulting /lib has libc.so.6 ->
libc-2.11.2.so dated JUNE!
Something is amiss here, huh?
All the 2.13 files, symlinks
On Monday 18 Sivan 5771 20:18:42 David Baron wrote:
> I was looking at the content of my /lib variations. Very interesting.
>
> The testing one I am using now las libc.so.6 -> libc-2.13.so dated May 12.
> The "sid" one I copied from the segfaulting /lib has libc.so.6
On Monday 18 Sivan 5771 21:16:28 David Baron wrote:
> On Monday 18 Sivan 5771 20:18:42 David Baron wrote:
> > I was looking at the content of my /lib variations. Very interesting.
> >
> > The testing one I am using now las libc.so.6 -> libc-2.13.so dated May
> > 1
On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 01:21:46 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:30:45PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > On Monday 18 Sivan 5771 21:16:28 David Baron wrote:
> > > On Monday 18 Sivan 5771 20:18:42 David Baron wrote:
> > > > I was looking at the conte
> * * * * *
> > > > > So to clean up this system, would I:
> > > > > 1. remove ALL 2.11.2 files in /lib (making sure there are no
> > > > > symlinks to them).
> > > > > 2. NOW, re-upgrade to 2.13-7
> > > > >
> > > > > What happened before:
> > > > > 1. I myself placed the 2.11.2 files from the liv
> > I, of course, did not touch the 2.13 ones. There are actually only a few
> > of them but are locally symlinked. There would be three version of
> > these, on /lib, lib/i386-gnu... and /lib/i686/cmov. The ones I checked a
> > all different.
> >
> >
> > Should the /lib ones be actually be remov
On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 18:21:35 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Le 21/06/2011 16:59, David Baron a écrit :
> >> > I, of course, did not touch the 2.13 ones. There are actually only a
> >> > few
> >> >
> >> > of them but are locally symlinked. There
On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 20:00:29 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Do please check over the pre/post/install scripts involved so this mess
> > does not recur :-)
>
> I don't really know what can be done, the preinst script already abort
> the installation if a non-dpkg owned version of ld.so is found. A
> I don't think the preinst script should take care of all these issues.
> When you defined LD_LIBRARY_PATH you should assume the consequences.
Should /lib NOT be there?
On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 20:52:17 Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > I don't think the preinst script should take care of all these issues.
> > When you defined LD_LIBRARY_PATH you should assume the consequences.
>
> I wonder if it would make sense to mention this (including a hint
On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 21:05:01 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:03:27PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > > I don't think the preinst script should take care of all these issues.
> > > When you defined LD_LIBRARY_PATH you should assume the consequences.
&
On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 21:41:13 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:28:19PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 20:42:14 you wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 08:15:49PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771
Package: tzdata
Version: 2014g-1
Severity: normal
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
The post-install configuration and manually doing dpkg-reconfigure will set UTC
to the current local time, then local time offset from this.
Setting from calendar widget, resetting ntp, can correct
On Tuesday 07 October 2014 23:09:19 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> control: tag -1 + moreinfo
>
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 03:03:46PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > Package: tzdata
> > Version: 2014g-1
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > --- Please enter the report be
Just upgraded tzdata, tzdata-java to the 2014-h2 version without much ado.
System local, UTC times were NOT disrupted.
So if post-install has been fixed (or some other unrelated package affected the
problem), might close.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
On Thursday 16 October 2014 22:53:15 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 12:15:27PM +0300, David Baron wrote:
> > Just upgraded tzdata, tzdata-java to the 2014-h2 version without much ado.
> > System local, UTC times were NOT disrupted.
> >
> > So if post
I have be delaying a bunch of upgrades because of this. Had a system messed by
libc6 before.
Is this bug current?
Only am64?
Is it safe to upgrades these packages?!?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-glibc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...
Package: libc6
Version: 2.18-3
Severity: normal
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
Get error on upgrade, whether or not one chooses to stop services and proceed.
In synaptic, says need to stop kdm. Did that, still got the error
Thankfully, 2.18-3 where it did get installed is OK an
On Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 14:59:44 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:00:23PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > Package: libc6
> > Version: 2.18-3
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > --- Please enter the report below this line. ---
> > Get error
On Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 15:20:25 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:12:04PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 14:59:44 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 03:00:23PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > > >
On Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 15:42:31 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:27:26PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 15:20:25 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:12:04PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > >
On Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 15:42:31 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:27:26PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 26 February, 2014 15:20:25 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:12:04PM +0200, David Baron wrote:
> > >
I corrected the symlink in /lib64.
apt-get -f install proceeded without a hitch.
Can close this.
However, as with previous upgrades that called out an "improper" or "foreign"
file in the folders, might have told me this right off. Since it was not in the
operational, easily and harmlessly fixe
Package: libc6
Version: sid
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
gweled no longer runs!
--- System information. ---
Architecture:
Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-2-amd64
Debian Release: buster/sid
500 yakkety ppa.launchpad.net
500 unstableftp.us.debian.org
500 te
Package: libc6
Version: 2.5-2
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks unrelated software
1. Upgrade -- balks at symlinks in /usr/lib, asks user to remove them. BAD
BAD BAD!
2. Once these removed, installs. Bash is now unusable--problem is in calls
from bashrc, bash.bashrc, et al. bash -norc, sh (
On Tuesday 24 April 2007, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> David Baron a écrit :
> > Package: libc6
> > Version: 2.5-2
> > Severity: critical
> > Justification: breaks unrelated software
> >
> > 1. Upgrade -- balks at symlinks in /usr/lib, asks user to remove them
On Wednesday 25 April 2007, you wrote:
> David Baron a écrit :
> > On Wednesday 25 April 2007, you wrote:
> >> Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> >>> d_bron a écrit :
> >>>> Package: libc6
> >>>> Version: 2.5-4
> >>>> Severity:
On Wednesday 25 April 2007, you wrote:
> Aurelien Jarno a écrit :
> > d_bron a écrit :
> >> Package: libc6
> >> Version: 2.5-4
> >> Severity: critical
> >> Justification: breaks unrelated software
> >>
> >> Once again, with feeling.
> >> 1. Attempt to fix up dependencies and upgrade using apt -4 in
Some more odities that may or may not be relevant:
With the downgraded (allbeit dependency-problematic) to 2.3*:
sh run from kpackage fails looking for an .so.# library.
sh run from anywhere else works fine
bash (sh is simply a symlink to bash) runs fine.
Opera run from a command line works fine.
On Wednesday 25 April 2007, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> David Baron a écrit :
> > Some more odities that may or may not be relevant:
> >
> > With the downgraded (allbeit dependency-problematic) to 2.3*:
> > sh run from kpackage fails looking for an .so.# library.
>
>
>> LD_ASSUME_KERNEL="2.6.1" /lib/ld-2.5.so /lib/libc.so.6
>I have a LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.19 in /etc/profile which was put there for
>jackd. Maybe I should get rid of that! Tried that with the upgrade and
>actually got into a bash login from the console but kdm would not restart to
>test it ther
>>> LD_ASSUME_KERNEL="2.6.1" /lib/ld-2.5.so /lib/libc.so.6
>>I have a LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.19 in /etc/profile which was put there for
>>jackd. Maybe I should get rid of that! Tried that with the upgrade and
>>actually got into a bash login from the console but kdm would not restart to
>>test it
> Any news about that? Could we close the bug?
My Debian box is working 100% OK. Can upgrade other stuff as well.
However:
After a recent post about libc6 upgrade trashing someone's sarge, I recommend
the following:
1. Pre-configure:
Check running kernel. If not new enough, STOP NOW.
Check curr
37 matches
Mail list logo
