Launchpad has imported 48 comments from the remote bug at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579838.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment
will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about
Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at
https://hel
** Bug watch removed: Red Hat Bugzilla #579838xx
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579838xx
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
Title:
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal inst
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu Natty)
Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu Natty)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Michael Vogt (mvo)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
h
This bug was fixed in the package update-manager - 1:0.142.22
---
update-manager (1:0.142.22) maverick-proposed; urgency=low
[ Barry Warsaw ]
* Add required details to .emit() call when running with
synaptic as the backend (LP: #631328)
[ Michael Vogt ]
* DistUpgrade/Dist
Apparently this:
~$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
vendor_id : CentaurHauls
cpu family : 6
model : 7
model name : VIA Samuel 2
stepping: 3
cpu MHz : 399.000
cache size : 64 KB
fdiv_bug: no
hlt_bug : no
f00f_bug: no
coma
Accepted update-manager into maverick-proposed, the package will build
now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here.
See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how
to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!
** Changed in: update-manager
Thanks a bunch Jean-Baptiste for your detailed testing! I fixed the bugs
and upload a new version (that also fixes #631328).
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subs
ok, dropped update-manager 1:0.142.21 from maverick-proposed. Thanks
for testing!
** Tags removed: verification-failed
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscrib
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu Maverick)
Status: Fix Committed => In Progress
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu Maverick)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Michael Vogt (mvo)
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug n
On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jean-Baptiste Lallement wrote:
> Verification for Lucid
>
> I've verified update-manager 1:0.142.21 in maverick-proposed and it failed
> for 2 reasons:
> 1. The function _test_and_fail_on_non_i686 is called in the wrong quirk
> handler (lucidPostInitialUpdate inst
Verification for Lucid
I've verified update-manager 1:0.142.21 in maverick-proposed and it failed for
2 reasons:
1. The function _test_and_fail_on_non_i686 is called in the wrong quirk handler
(lucidPostInitialUpdate instead of maverickPostInitialUpdate)
2. in _test_and_fail_on_non_i686 the test
So this SRU is an update for the release upgrader that will used by
update-manager when upgrading from lucid to maverick, correct? Could
someone affected by this bug please do such a test, so that we can
publish this SRU for the benefit of the other users?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruc
Please remember that this fix needs to be tested with "update-manager
--proposed" when doing a lucid -> maverick upgrade (or do-release-
upgrade --proposed)
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a memb
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu/maverick-proposed/update-manager
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@list
Accepted update-manager into maverick-proposed, the package will build
now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here.
See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how
to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!
** Changed in: update-manager
** Branch linked: lp:update-manager
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://list
I'm happy to add a update-manager check for this and SRU that, from what
I understand its enough to check if "/proc/cpuinfo" has "cmov" in flags
on i386 or is that not sufficient?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification
Mattias: The release notes are a piss-poor excuse for having shoved the
i686 blueprint via the backdoor after a UDS hallway conversation and
without properly polling the community at large BEFORE blueprinting it
and implementing it. It is also a piss-poor excuse for not implementing
safeguards in p
On 14.10.2010 23:23, Jeremy Visser wrote:
> Oloryn said:
>> I'm showing my ignorance of installation internals I guess, but will a
>> libc6 preinst script that prevents an upgrade cause upgrade-manager to
>> roll everything back to the previous release?
>
> Given that Ubuntu hasn't made a single re
@Jeremy
Hello, if you want to give a hand feel free to join the testing team.
https://edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-testing
New testers are always welcome.:-)
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a memb
Well, if the preinst script *doesn't* cause a roll-back, I'd have to
question if a libc6 preinst script is the 'only correct' place to
prevent an upgrade. You want to leave the machine in pretty much the
same state as before do-release-upgrade was called, so that, e.g. the
machine can at least con
Oloryn said:
> I'm showing my ignorance of installation internals I guess, but will a
> libc6 preinst script that prevents an upgrade cause upgrade-manager to
> roll everything back to the previous release?
Given that Ubuntu hasn't made a single release since 7.04 that hasn't
had major regressions
I'm showing my ignorance of installation internals I guess, but will a
libc6 preinst script that prevents an upgrade cause upgrade-manager to
roll everything back to the previous release(i.e. it looks to me like by
the time you've downloaded the upgrades so you can get to the preinst
script, apt ha
Yeah, that user was me. I'm also wondering how this will affect
Lubuntu, which is geared exactly towards these types of systems. I
presume a 586-compatible version of libc would be needed for Lubuntu?
If so, could we have some way of having that available for server
installs (yes, there are some
As previously stated, the only correct place to prevent an upgrade from
taking place is in libc6's preinst script.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
A user has just reported this on the ubuntu-users list; any chance we
could get a fix into 'update-manager' to at least not hose people's
previously working systems?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you a
I'm seeing the same error upgrading to Maverick on a machine with a
K6-2/450 cpu. I'll agree with earlier comments that I wish that this
change had been made much more clear, and the upgrade mechanism had been
changed to abort the upgrade, as now it looks like I'll have to wipe and
re-install this
On 07.09.2010 20:48, Nick Lowe wrote:
> Sorry, of course, my momentary slip up. And I hadn't checked the change
> log for binutils.
>
> Are you going to restore proper i686 compilation to eglibc then?
no, no time for testing. If you can build the packages, test them, publish
them
so that other
Sorry, of course, my momentary slip up. And I hadn't checked the change
log for binutils.
Are you going to restore proper i686 compilation to eglibc then?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a membe
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2010-08/msg00057.html
this is fixed in maverick. so, no bug report needed, and even if, then
the bug should have been reported to the binutils package.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug
I've also had a brief look at the kernel.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=arch/x86/Makefile_32.cpu;hb=HEAD
… special cases the GX1 to -march=pentium-mmx and the LX to
-march=geode,-march=pentium-mmx.
There is also a special case for the bug in binutils w
The frustrating thing is that broken semantics for i686 have led to
absurd patches such as the following being proposed as a workaround:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/browse_thread/thread/c1ec68f5498236dc/617726bec31595ed?show_docid=617726bec31595ed
The point that gets missed there
Applying the above patches to binutils and rebuilding eglibc would not
only allow removing the kludge that was applied to 2.12-0ubuntu4, it
would also allow building i686 kernels that actually run on a Geode LX,
on the Transmeta Crusoe and on a number of VIA products.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: ille
Once the AMD patches that fix the bad semantics for NOPL and i686 in
binutils have been applied, the build of eglibc should be changed to
restore -Wa,-mtune=i686 :)
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you ar
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils-cvs/2010-08/msg00057.html
^- That - with the proper fix, you'll no longer get NOPLs emitted for generic
i686 via binutils (GAS).
NOPL is not standard i686, it was undocumented and has just been de
facto supported since the Pentium Pro.
The correct solution is su
Either this bug should be marked as incomplete as the present 'fix' is a
workaround and not a resolution to the actual issue or the other bug I
opened about a suboptimal fix being committed should be reopened? Which
is it? :)
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/
what exactly is missing in binutils?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lis
Why did you close the other bug report I opened then and linked to from here as
being a duplicate of this?
The 'fix' you've committed is a workaround and doesn't fix the actual issue!
Read above! :)
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received
The issue "libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction" is fixed. I don't
intend to change anything else for maverick.
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Fix Released
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug n
Mattias Klose: please don't close bug reports without reading the
comments that were recently added and acting upon the new information.
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released => Incomplete
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
Yo
please don't reopen bug reports without any comment. closing again. if
you think that something is missing, then please point out the omission.
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Fix Released
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/58
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Fix Released => Incomplete
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubun
Reported in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eglibc/+bug/632441
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubun
It should do!
The basic semantics for choosing the NOP sequence were completely wrong. This
has been fixed now.
The NOPL instruction is not supported by all i686 processors, the coded
assumption was that they did. This has been changed by the recent AMD patches
so that it is not assumed and it'
Nick: thank you for this information.
Yes, it would be worth including those fixes into Maverick and trying to
see if rebuilding the toolchain, then libc6 and the 686 kernel would
provide something that remains usable on a Geode LX and, hopefully, also
on a Geode GX2 (which, for marketing reasons,
Is it worth revisting this as it can be optimised for i686 now and not
fail?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579838xx
Quentin Neill 2010-09-03 00:38:02 EDT
"FYI the Linux binutils 2.20.51.0.11 release contains a fix that no longer
generates the offending NOPs for i686.
2010/08/06 pat
now works with the Geode-LX. No need to fix it in the update-manager
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Won't Fix
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bug
Why wouldn't it be included?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubunt
On 28.06.2010 06:21, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> I confirm that eglibc 2.12-0ubuntu4 apparently fixes it. There is no
> more "Illegal instruction" error during upgrade.
just to note that while we may have this patch in maverick, it's no guarantee
to
have it in later releases as well.
--
libc6
I confirm that eglibc 2.12-0ubuntu4 apparently fixes it. There is no
more "Illegal instruction" error during upgrade.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed
This bug was fixed in the package eglibc - 2.12-0ubuntu4
---
eglibc (2.12-0ubuntu4) maverick; urgency=low
* Update to the eglibc 2.12 branch (r10817).
- patches/any/cvs-flush-cache-textrels.diff: Remove.
- patches/any/cvs-redirect-throw.diff: Remove.
* Merge with Debian (r
The "upstream" Fedora bug just saw an attachment added a few days ago.
What it does is disable the -mtune options for i686 in libc6 build
scripts.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubun
GCC seems to offer -march=geode and -mtune=geode since GCC 4.3, so I'm
wondering if using these in combination with i686 optimization might
accomplish what we need?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you ar
Then my answer has to be "everything" since I'm running a Geode host
with a normal hard-disk and packages that occasionally get installed or
removed as needed.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a m
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Confirmed
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-
On 14.06.2010 17:08, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> That's completely unrelated to this bug and besides the point.
No. we have more than option to resolve this issue. One of them is to ignore
the request and provide a PPA with packages explicitly optimized for i586 for a
project.
--
libc6 upgrad
That's completely unrelated to this bug and besides the point. You had
asked me to track down which instruction causes the illegal error and I
asked for instructions on how to do that. I'm asking if, given the
existing information on the FC bug, this still needs testing and, if
yes, how.
--
lib
well, somehwat ;) there was a request to provide a list of packages
which are required from your point of view to be runnable on this
platform. Please could you open a separate bug report for this and
reference it here?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/
Noted. Is the bug still incomplete, then? If yes, can you please
provide me with instructions on how to get a trace on a package being
unpacked, in a situation when the package happens to be libc6, which
affects the operation of everything else on top?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instructio
the bug isn't closed, just kept the eglibc task open
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu
Matthias, sorry, but in what way is this bug suddenly invalid?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@li
** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
** Changed in: gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Invalid
** Changed in: gcc-4.5 (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Invalid
** Also affects: binutils (Fedora) via
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579838
Impor
** Changed in: binutils (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => High
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs
As found by Fedora, the real issue is with GAS:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579838
** Also affects: binutils (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Bug watch added: Red Hat Bugzilla #579838
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=579838
--
libc6 upgrade f
Can you please provide instructions for checking which instruction
caused the error?
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs maili
Matin-Eic, did you verify that this is the same instruction?
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Incomplete
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which i
** Changed in: gcc-4.5 (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Medium
** Changed in: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Medium
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bu
I'm afraid that the patch selected by Mattias didn't fix it:
Preparing to replace libc6 2.11.1-0ubuntu9 (using
.../libc6_2.12-0ubuntu3_i386.deb) ...
Checking for services that may need to be restarted...
Checking init scripts...
Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
dpkg: warning: subprocess old post-r
fixed in gcc-4.5 4.5.0-5ubuntu1
** Changed in: gcc-4.5 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Fix Released
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
u
** Branch linked: lp:ubuntu/eglibc
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists
This bug was fixed in the package eglibc - 2.12-0ubuntu3
---
eglibc (2.12-0ubuntu3) maverick; urgency=low
* Merge with Debian (r4318, trunk).
* Rebuild for i386. LP: #587186.
-- Matthias KloseFri, 04 Jun 2010 14:32:19 +0200
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Triag
Thanks for patching GCC. Anxiously awaiting for the rebuilt libc6 to
test whether this does the trick.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
** Also affects: gcc-4.5 (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
fixed in 4.4.4-4ubuntu1
** Changed in: gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Fix Released
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubunt
On 02.06.2010 18:21, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> As discussed with the Ubuntu developers, it appears that this could be
> fixed by adding "-mtune=generic32" to the compiler defaults,
that would be wrong. the correct fix is the one mentioned in
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/8/296
--
libc6 upgrade
** Changed in: gcc-4.4 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Triaged
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lis
As discussed with the Ubuntu developers, it appears that this could be
fixed by adding "-mtune=generic32" to the compiler defaults, to avoid
generating code that includes the undocumented NOPL instruction. This
would restore compatibility with at least some single-chip architectures
such as recent
We should definitely have a preinst fragment here - it's only sane, and
there's plenty of precedent for it.
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Medium
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Won't Fix => Triaged
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Importance: Medium =>
Actually, the proper way to refuse to upgrade would be to follow what
Debian did when they bumped the minimal platform requirement on SPARC.
IIRC there was a preinst maintainer script segment that checked the
machine type and exited dpkg with an error. Doing this would be the only
totally foolproof
Ubuntu doesn't install on the OLPC anyway. It runs a very hacked Fedora
kernel. I really wouldn't worry about the hordes of Ubuntu running OLPC
users. There is a Debian build that does run and there is an old version
of Ubuntu based on the stock kernel. It is devices such as the Viglen
MPC-L and th
** Also affects: update-manager (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs maili
it would probably be worthwhile to have update manager try to detect
this scenario so ppl w/ boxes like this are not allowed to dist-upgrade
past lucid (and break their boxes)
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification bec
> now at least I know that we can't upgrade anymore...
lucid and all lucid point release are unaffected by this.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to U
Well, we're exactly one of those companies having chosen to use Ubuntu
LTSP with i586 compatible hardware (PC-Engines ALIX boards). Mmh, good
that Martin-Éric did blog about this, now at least I know that we can't
upgrade anymore...
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchp
Bear in mind that dropping support for i586 also means that Ubuntu
cannot install on the OLPC and that most thin client hardware meant for
for LTSP won't be able to run on Ubuntu either, given how the chipsets
used in thin client hardware tends to be i586-compatible. As such, I
honestly think that
> There was a name line and it clearly said i586.
Matin-Eic, the line did state the machine, not the processor.
> producing a libc6-i586 package compiled for i586 processors
no, as discussed at UDS we are dropping support for anything older than
i686 for maverick.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illeg
Mattias, please look again. There was a name line and it clearly said
i586.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
u
If this is going to be the case, then producing a libc6-i586 package
compiled for i586 processors wouldn’t be a bad idea.
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscri
> it would be a good idea to read the data attached to the bug.
there was none.
> This is a Geode LX800, therefore i586 generic.
ok, closing as won't fix.
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Won't Fix
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bug
Mattias Klose, it would be a good idea to read the data attached to the
bug. This is a Geode LX800, therefore i586 generic.
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => New
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug no
which processor is this? anything older than i686 isn't supported in
maverick
** Changed in: eglibc (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/49303552/Dependencies.txt
--
libc6 upgrade fails: illegal instruction
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/587186
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ub
92 matches
Mail list logo
