On Fri 12 Nov 2021 at 10:27:53 (+1100), Charlie wrote:
>
> On one of my laptops latest upgrade, Dell Inspiron "libc-bin"
> is fine: Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.31-13+deb11u2) ...
>
> On the other a HP 245 06 laptop it is reported as having a bug:
From my keyboard:
Hello anyone with the time,
On one of my laptops latest upgrade, Dell Inspiron "libc-bin"
is fine: Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.31-13+deb11u2) ...
On the other a HP 245 06 laptop it is reported as having a bug:
#9
From my keyboard:
Apologies if anyone got this twice. Sent it with the wrong email.
Hello anyone with the time,
On one of my laptops latest upgrade, Dell Inspiron "libc-bin"
is fine: Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.31-13+deb11u2) ...
On the othe
On Ma, 16 iun 20, 11:47:24, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> Since postfix is already hosed:
>
> sudo rm -rf /etc/postfix
> sudo apt install --reinstall postfix
For most packages (didn't check postfix) this might not do what one
expects.
Files marked as dpkg conffiles will not be restored, as dpkg consid
On 6/16/20 9:47 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
Gary Aitken wrote:
...
Since postfix is already hosed:
sudo rm -rf /etc/postfix
sudo apt install --reinstall postfix
Thanks, will save that for next time.
Gary
e automysqlbackup as this is a production system and the autobackup
> > > > > is
> > > > > working properly. I believe the postfix dependency is for cases
> > > > > where the
> > > > > auto-backup fails; it's also preve
from being delivered for failing
cron jobs.
sudo apt install --reinstall postfix
sudo dpkg-reconfigure postfix
might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.
I've already tried reconfiguring and reinstalling
on jobs.
> >
> > sudo apt install --reinstall postfix
> >
> > sudo dpkg-reconfigure postfix
> >
> > might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
> > to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.
>
> I've already tried reconfiguring and reinstalling postfix, to no avail.
Yes, but did apt install --reinstall help?
-dsr-
ng to actually perform
> the action. --simulate works whether running as root or not. In any
> case, I've previously tried running --simulate using sudo or when logged
> in as root and the result is the same ... the libc-bin self-reference:
>
> > dpkg: cycle found whi
pt install --reinstall postfix
sudo dpkg-reconfigure postfix
might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.
I've already tried reconfiguring and reinstalling postfix, to no avail.
Ubuntu, however, is now relatively di
do or when logged
in as root and the result is the same ... the libc-bin self-reference:
dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers:
chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible:
libc-bin -> libc-bin
packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolvable:
libc-
ch provides default-mta is to be removed.
>Package mail-transport-agent is not installed.
>Package postfix which provides mail-transport-agent is to be removed.
>
> dpkg: error processing package postfix (--remove):
> dependency problems - not removing
> Processing tr
ostfix
might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.
Ubuntu, however, is now relatively distantly derived from
Debian; there should be an ubuntu-users list...
-dsr-
ostfix (--remove):
dependency problems - not removing
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.23-0ubuntu10) ...
dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers:
chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible:
libc-bin -> libc-bin
packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolv
On Lu, 30 mar 20, 12:47:45, Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > > For my apt preferences I had:
> > >
> > > Package: *
> > > Pin: release a=testing
> > > Pin-Priority: 650
> > >
> > > Package: *
> > > Pin: release a=unstable
> > > Pin-Priority: 600
> > >
> >
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:59, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> According to your 'apt policy' you also had repositories configured for
> Skype and Docker. Did you remove those as well?
They remain, just were in their own files.
>
> > For my apt preferences I had:
> >
> > Package: *
> > Pin: release a=tes
On Du, 29 mar 20, 16:40:03, Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 13:33, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > > Pinned packages:
> > > libpython3.8-minimal -> 3.8.2-1 with priority -3
> > > libcrypt1 -> 1:4.4.15-1 with priority -3
> > > libcrypt1:i386 -> 1:4.4.15-1 with priority -
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 13:33, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> So you have a multiarch (amd64 and i386) system, with amd64 repositories
> for Skype and Docker.
>
> Why do you need i386? I'm guessing you might have some locally installed
> packages as well. Please show also the output of
>
> aptitude
On Du, 29 mar 20, 12:37:39, Martin wrote:
>
> Here is apt policy:
>
> Package files:
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> release a=now
> 500 https://repo.skype.com/deb stable/main amd64 Packages
> release o=. stable,a=stable,n=stable,l=. stable,c=main,b=amd64
> origin repo.skype.com
>
I commented out the testing repository in my apt sources list and ran
apt update/upgrade/clean/autoremove. It helped e.g. with updating
firefox from 69 to 74 but other packages are still stuck.
apt list --upgradable
libc-bin/unstable 2.30-4 amd64 [upgradable from: 2.29-2]
libc6/unstable 2.30-4
Hello Andrei,
thank you for your time!
> With this sources list you appear to be running unstable, not testing.
> Please show also the output of 'apt policy'.
>
sorry, yes I am usually happy to be on "unstable".
Here is apt policy:
Package files:
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
release a=now
5
On Sb, 28 mar 20, 23:59:17, Martin wrote:
>
> I have a debian bullseye/testing machine on a 2017 HP i7 machine that
> I used daily for many months but was not running since end of November
> 2019. I upgraded everything with apt update + dist-upgrade +
> autoremove + clean this week.
[...]
> Thi
: 69.0.1-1]
libc-bin/testing 2.30-2 amd64 [upgradable from: 2.29-2]
libc6/testing 2.30-2 amd64 [upgradable from: 2.29-2]
libc6/testing 2.30-2 i386 [upgradable from: 2.29-2]
libruby2.5/testing,unstable 2.5.7-1+b1 amd64 [upgradable from: 2.5.7-1]
login/testing,unstable 1:4.8.1-1 amd64 [upgradable fro
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 02:34:54PM +0200, Ulf Volmer wrote:
> On 15.08.2018 14:02, Reco wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 08:33:37AM -0300, Marcelo Lacerda wrote:
>
> >> but I imagine that a
> >> security update to it doesn't actually change anything to libc
On 15.08.2018 14:02, Reco wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 08:33:37AM -0300, Marcelo Lacerda wrote:
>> but I imagine that a
>> security update to it doesn't actually change anything to libc source code,
>> so why do the two of them always upgrade together?
>
&
Hi.
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 08:33:37AM -0300, Marcelo Lacerda wrote:
> I know that the kernel and libc are deeply integrated
On the contrary, libc merely states a minimal supported kernel version,
and you're free to use more-or-less recent kernel with it.
You'll miss all new
I know that the kernel and libc are deeply integrated but I imagine that a
security update to it doesn't actually change anything to libc source code,
so why do the two of them always upgrade together?
John Hasler wrote:
> Bob Proulx writes:
> > When libc is initially upgraded for the first time it will ask you if
> > you want to restart services. You can answer yes or no at that time.
> > But once that option has been set I don't know of a way to change it.
>
>
Bob Proulx writes:
> When libc is initially upgraded for the first time it will ask you if
> you want to restart services. You can answer yes or no at that time.
> But once that option has been set I don't know of a way to change it.
"dpkg-reconfigure libc6" should do i
On Friday 30 January 2015 00:10:18 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 29 January 2015 09:19:30 Lisi Reisz did opine
>
> And Gene did reply:
> > On Thursday 29 January 2015 13:35:49 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > To get the fixes into use, you MUST
> > > reboot, no way around it. To do otherwise WILL lea
rt of services, I need to *blindly* upgrade glibc
> without running the restart.
Your best strategy is to restart those services manually first. Then
if any of them have problems debug those problems. Make sure that
your services restart correctly. Then upgrade libc. The libc upgrade
will r
On Thursday 29 January 2015 09:19:30 Lisi Reisz did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Thursday 29 January 2015 13:35:49 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > To get the fixes into use, you MUST
> > reboot, no way around it. To do otherwise WILL leave the machine
> > vulnerable.
>
> No, you do not necessarily have
Mihamina RAKOTOMANDIMBY a écrit :
>
> Digging into the apt-get or aptitude documentation, I miss the right
> option in order to make it upgrade libc & libc-bin without restarting
> the services and without asking what to do.
AFAIK, that's the default. I have never seen
On 01/29/2015 04:14 PM, Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:50:12 +0300
Mihamina RAKOTOMANDIMBY wrote:
I'm going to massively upgrade some ghost-vulnerable machines.
Digging into the apt-get or aptitude documentation, I miss the right
option in order to make it upgrade
On Thursday 29 January 2015 13:35:49 Gene Heskett wrote:
> To get the fixes into use, you MUST
> reboot, no way around it. To do otherwise WILL leave the machine
> vulnerable.
No, you do not necessarily have to reboot. As various people have said, you
can restart individual services; and you ca
On Thursday 29 January 2015 07:50:12 Mihamina RAKOTOMANDIMBY did opine
And Gene did reply:
> Hi all
>
> I'm going to massively upgrade some ghost-vulnerable machines.
>
> Digging into the apt-get or aptitude documentation, I miss the right
> option in order to make it
On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:50:12 +0300
Mihamina RAKOTOMANDIMBY wrote:
> I'm going to massively upgrade some ghost-vulnerable machines.
>
> Digging into the apt-get or aptitude documentation, I miss the right
> option in order to make it upgrade libc & libc-bin without resta
Hi all
I'm going to massively upgrade some ghost-vulnerable machines.
Digging into the apt-get or aptitude documentation, I miss the right
option in order to make it upgrade libc & libc-bin without restarting
the services and without asking what to do.
Would you know the rig
On 5 September 2014 01:54, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Unless you have a specific reason for using the weekly build, go with
> what Debian recommends to install Jessie, the Beta 1 installer:
>
>https://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
>
OK. Thanks for letting me know. Should I file a bug r
ve repeated this with mirrors:
> mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian
> http.debian.org (from the available options)
>
> The installer stops at 12% with "Running post-installation trigger
> libc-bin" and just stays there not doing anything.
>
>
> The installation .iso is:
(from the available options)
The installer stops at 12% with "Running post-installation trigger
libc-bin" and just stays there not doing anything.
The installation .iso is:
http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-cd/debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso
last modified: 201
of the screen lists:
iB libc-bin
pBA libc-bin:amd64
The red box in the center of the screen says: No solution to these
descrepency problems exists!
At this point Aptitude is essentially frozen.
Attempts to run dpkg produce:
root# dpkg -i libc-bin
dpkg: error processing libc-bin
On Vi, 25 apr 14, 17:29:13, Gary Roach wrote:
> When running Aptitude, a red bar in the bottom half of the screen
> says
> "Unable to resolve dependencies". If I hit "g" after I update package list
> and Mark Upgradable, the top of the screen lists:
>
conflict between libc-bin and
libc-bin-amd64. I have not been able to resolve the conflict. My dpkg update
system is essentially frozen (everything hangs up at the conflict
notification).
Anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve this conflict. Deleting one of
the files is not an option. The software
On Mi, 23 apr 14, 11:58:49, Gary Roach wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am running an Intel i5-750, 4 core processor with Debian 3.2.54-2 x86-64
> OS and Debian Squeeze. Recent attempts to update the system, with Aptitude
> (and dpkg), have failed because of a conflict between libc-bin and
&
Hi all,
I am running an Intel i5-750, 4 core processor with Debian 3.2.54-2
x86-64 OS and Debian Squeeze. Recent attempts to update the system, with
Aptitude (and dpkg), have failed because of a conflict between libc-bin
and libc-bin-amd64. I have not been able to resolve the conflict. My
; /bin/sh: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not
>> found (required by
>> /home/john/.local/share/Steam/ubuntu12_64/gameoverlayrenderer.so)
>>
>> It's because it is written for Ubuntu basically, I figure testing
>> would have this. Is there a way
l/share/Steam/ubuntu12_64/gameoverlayrenderer.so)
>
> It's because it is written for Ubuntu basically, I figure testing
> would have this. Is there a way to have the newer libc on wheezy?
> Otherwise I might have to upgrade to testing.
Well... Upgrading to testing may be a little severe. At the very
l
figure testing
would have this. Is there a way to have the newer libc on wheezy?
Otherwise I might have to upgrade to testing.
--
www.johntate.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.
itecture the Debian package provides
> > two wrappers which can be use to workaround and/or debug the issue:
> > - /usr/lib/libc/memcpy-preload.so simply replace all calls to memcpy()
> > by a call to memmove()
> > - /usr/lib/libc/memcpy-syslog-preload.so does the sa
or debug the issue:
> - /usr/lib/libc/memcpy-preload.so simply replace all calls to memcpy()
> by a call to memmove()
> - /usr/lib/libc/memcpy-syslog-preload.so does the same, but in addition
> logs (with rate limit) the issue to syslog, so that it can be
> detected and fi
Hi,
In /usr/share/doc/libc6/NEWS.Debian.gz it reads:
eglibc (2.13-3) unstable; urgency=low
...
For this reason, on the amd64 architecture the Debian package provides
two wrappers which can be use to workaround and/or debug the issue:
- /usr/lib/libc/memcpy-preload.so simply replace all
In , Miguel Obliviemo
wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> Yeah, there a lot of Debian packages. If you have some time, you might
>> help out some of the ones that you use that need some TLC. Install
>> devscripts and run wnpp-alert.
>
>Done. I'm not sure why, though.
w
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Yeah, there a lot of Debian packages. If you have some time, you might help
out some of the ones that you use that need some TLC. Install devscripts and
run wnpp-alert.
Done. I'm not sure why, though.
It is in the non-free repository (bec
In , Miguel Obliviemo
wrote:
>I'm new to Debian. I downloaded the first Lenny DVD and booted it and
>installed it. I'm staggered that there can be _five_ DVDs. That's
>quite a lot.
Yeah, there a lot of Debian packages. If you have some time, you might help
out some of the ones that you use t
Dear list,
I'm new to Debian. I downloaded the first Lenny DVD and booted it and
installed it. I'm staggered that there can be _five_ DVDs. That's
quite a lot.
In installing, I chose the "desktop" complexion because I wanted to
have a working graphical user interface. Maybe that was a mistak
On date Sunday 2007-11-11 19:25:36 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Stefano Sabatini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm on a Debian Lenny with a linux-2.6.22 kernel and the
> > linux-libc-dev 2.6.22-4 version.
> >
> > linux-libc-dev is replacing the old pac
Stefano Sabatini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm on a Debian Lenny with a linux-2.6.22 kernel and the
> linux-libc-dev 2.6.22-4 version.
>
> linux-libc-dev is replacing the old package linux-kernel-headers which
> seems to be deprecated.
Correct.
> The problem
Hi all,
I'm on a Debian Lenny with a linux-2.6.22 kernel and the
linux-libc-dev 2.6.22-4 version.
linux-libc-dev is replacing the old package linux-kernel-headers which
seems to be deprecated.
The problem is that I'm trying to compile the spca5xx module from
source, and it fails
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Xarchiver crashes with a double free or corruption error on Sid since libc was
updated a few days ago.
Cheers
Frank
- --
Change the world one loan at a time - visit Kiva.org to find out how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
If anyone is going through this problem, hopefully my resolution
might help them - it looks like in the upgrade of libc-dev, something
got hosed. The interim solution to the problem while I fixed the
install was to set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/lib, as it seemed that the
problem was arising
after further digging, I've found this thread on the debian glibc list:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2005/03/msg00145.html
I'll be looking into how I can fix the problem - their suggested fix
does not work.
-lev
On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
Ron,
On Aug 17, 2007
Ron,
On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
If I indeed am running a mixed system, how can I switch entirely
to the
etch release?
Eliminate all Sarge references from sources.list.
my sources.list is as follows:
deb http://security.debian.org etch/updates main contrib non-free
deb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/17/07 16:27, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> [sorry for the multiple replies]
>
> On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 08/17/07 16:16, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
>>> replying to my initial
[sorry for the multiple replies]
On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/17/07 16:16, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
replying to my initial post -
I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm
assuming that if this was wi
replying to myself -
I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm
assuming that if this was widespread, I would've heard a "yeah, it's
being worked on" sort of reply.
Given that - can anyone recommend even a place to start from as far
as this problem goes? It seem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/17/07 16:16, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> replying to my initial post -
>
> I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm
> assuming that if this was widespread, I would've heard a "yeah, it's
> being worked on" sort of reply.
>
replying to my initial post -
I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm
assuming that if this was widespread, I would've heard a "yeah, it's
being worked on" sort of reply.
Given that - can anyone recommend even a place to start from as far
as this problem goes?
Hello, it looks like after running apt-get upgrade on my box, my
glibc environment has been broken:
Updated the following:
Get:1 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main libc6-dev
2.3.6.ds1-13etch2 [2717kB]
Get:2 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main libc6 2.3.6.ds1-13etch2
[4699kB]
Get:3 http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Juraj Fedel wrote:
>>I have glibc-doc installed that contain info and html documents but
>>I also want man pages eg.
>>man malloc
>>Which package do I need?
> $ dpkg -S /usr/share/man/man3/malloc.3.gz
> manpages-dev: /usr/sh
2006/3/3, Juraj Fedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have glibc-doc installed that contain info and html documents but
> I also want man pages eg.
> man malloc
> Which package do I need?
manpages-dev
Cheers,
Kaj
Juraj Fedel wrote:
> I have glibc-doc installed that contain info and html documents but
> I also want man pages eg.
> man malloc
> Which package do I need?
> Thanks
> Juraj Fedel
>
>
$ dpkg -S /usr/share/man/man3/malloc.3.gz
manpages-dev: /usr/share/man/man3/malloc.3.gz
-Roberto
--
Roberto C.
I have glibc-doc installed that contain info and html documents but
I also want man pages eg.
man malloc
Which package do I need?
Thanks
Juraj Fedel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
With 'unstable' I'm getting an increasingly large number of packages
being held back (seemingly on 'libc') and was wondering whether I'd
messed something up (eg when experimenting with 'apt-cacher' and
generally trying to get a new box up and running '
I've got a netbackup linux client installed on a machine which uses
mostly debian testing (I've got some positive pinings for few stable
packets and general negative pinning for unstable/experimental (I don't
even remember why ;->)).
The problem that occured few days ago is that I cannot connect
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:09:56AM -0700, JT Justman wrote:
> Hi -
>
> I recently upgraded my libc6 to 2.3.2 by downloading and installing the
> packages manually. It was required for another package. Now, I'm
> getting bad results from df:
>
> # df
> Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Av
Hi -
I recently upgraded my libc6 to 2.3.2 by downloading and installing the
packages manually. It was required for another package. Now, I'm
getting bad results from df:
# df
Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/hda1-19885254958655 1
Is SCHED_FIFO on Woody working?
Is SCHED_FIFO a function of the kernel and libc together?
Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
I've got an app that runs SCHED_FIFO with max priority.
I googled around and found some audio folks picking at the SCHED_FIFO
thing. My Woody system is a
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 08:20:17PM +0200, Attila Csosz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to update my stable system to testing but I want to keep the
> old libc libs and headers. I dont know if it is possible. The reason:
> kylix 3 works only with libc libs while linking an applicat
Hi,
I'd like to update my stable system to testing but I want to keep the
old libc libs and headers. I dont know if it is possible. The reason:
kylix 3 works only with libc libs while linking an application.
Acceptable to copy "/lib" to "/lib2" or somewhat but I dont
Frank Uepping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
> in which package are the info pages of the libc hidden?
Not too hidden:
http://tinyurl.com/5qgvq
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
in which package are the info pages of the libc hidden?
/FAU
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:26:45PM -0400, Lee Bradshaw wrote:
| On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:47:13PM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote:
| > PS: Mail-Followup-To not honored as it appears to be munged.
Some people actually want a copy. That is what the header is for --
indicating what your preference is a
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:47:13PM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:25:35AM -0400, Lee Bradshaw wrote:
>> On a stable system, libc is executable and returns version info:
>> [...]
>> But on testing (same package in unsta
Hello!
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:25:35AM -0400, Lee Bradshaw wrote:
> On a stable system, libc is executable and returns version info:
> [...]
> But on testing (same package in unstable) libc is not executable.
> [...]
> Matlab is one of the applications that tries to execute
On a stable system, libc is executable and returns version info:
$ /lib/libc-2.2.5.so
GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.5, by Roland McGrath et al.
Copyright (C) 1992-2001, 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is
nonsense comes from.
This leaves me a little stuck.. I guess I need to either change the
version that "uname -r" returns, or somehow hack the libc upgrade
process so it gets the right value. I'm not sure how feasible either
potential solution is, or to be honest have any idea how I&#
At Thursday, 18 March 2004, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Harland Christofferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> what i ended up doing was:
>>
>> dpkg -i --force-overwrite /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.2.5-11.
>> 5_i386.deb
>>
>> somehow, that _seems_ to have fixed it. i can run apt-
Harland Christofferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> what i ended up doing was:
>
> dpkg -i --force-overwrite /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.2.5-11.
> 5_i386.deb
>
> somehow, that _seems_ to have fixed it. i can run apt-get -f install
> now and it does not complain (part of it's complaint was to
At Thursday, 18 March 2004, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Harland Christofferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Reading Package Lists...
>> Building Dependency Tree...
>> You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
>> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet depen
Harland Christofferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Reading Package Lists...
> Building Dependency Tree...
> You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
> Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
> bind9: Conflicts: bind but 1:8.3.3-2.0woody2 is to be install
At Thursday, 18 March 2004, Harland Christofferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
com> wrote:
>i tried to install package bind9 using apt-get install. the result is:
>
>Reading Package Lists...
>Building Dependency Tree...
>You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
>Sorry, but the following
i tried to install package bind9 using apt-get install. the result is:
Reading Package Lists...
Building Dependency Tree...
You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
bind9: Conflicts: bind but 1:8.3.3-2.0woody2 is to b
* iain d broadfoot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> thoughts/flames welcome...
From http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=216605
"For those who encounter this bug: you should either remove
gsfonts-other, or keep the previous version of fontconfig, until this
bug is fixed."
sorry for the n
* iain d broadfoot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Has anyone else had similar problems?
OK, more debugging finds the following:
(gdb) backtrace
#0 0x407196c9 in free () from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 0x4096e34f in ?? () from /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6
#2 0x0001 in ?? ()
#3 0x409c98e8 in ?? () from
* iain d broadfoot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * David Z Maze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > and you'll generally get a segfault where the program actually messes
> > up, rather than when the symptoms are seen later. There's a cost in
> > both memory and runtime, but using LD_PRELOAD inside gdb m
* David Z Maze ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> and you'll generally get a segfault where the program actually messes
> up, rather than when the symptoms are seen later. There's a cost in
> both memory and runtime, but using LD_PRELOAD inside gdb makes this a
> lot less permanent.
The thing that I fi
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 18:35, iain d broadfoot wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> I'm having a few problems with programs dying:
>
> liferea:0x407196c9 in free () from /lib/libc.so.6
> gaim: 0x407466c9 in free () from /lib/libc.so.6
>
> I can't see a bugreport about this on libc6, and it doesn't
iain d broadfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm having a few problems with programs dying:
>
> liferea:0x407196c9 in free () from /lib/libc.so.6
> gaim: 0x407466c9 in free () from /lib/libc.so.6
>
> I can't see a bugreport about this on libc6, and it doesn't feel
> like the in
Hey list,
I'm having a few problems with programs dying:
liferea:0x407196c9 in free () from /lib/libc.so.6
gaim: 0x407466c9 in free () from /lib/libc.so.6
I can't see a bugreport about this on libc6, and it doesn't feel
like the individual apps are doing anything in par
1 - 100 of 273 matches
Mail list logo
