Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Sun 09 Sep 2012 at 21:23:16 -0400, Carl Fink wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:50:36AM +0100, Brian wrote: Maybe first read the thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00466.html A thread in which someone says the only way to proceed is to file a bug against glibc, and another gives a way to reach the glibc team? And a third mentions a bug is already opened. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910082700.GW24280@desktop
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 09:27:00AM +0100, Brian wrote: On Sun 09 Sep 2012 at 21:23:16 -0400, Carl Fink wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:50:36AM +0100, Brian wrote: Maybe first read the thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00466.html A thread in which someone says the only way to proceed is to file a bug against glibc, and another gives a way to reach the glibc team? And a third mentions a bug is already opened. And the bug is apparently going to sit unfixed until after Wheezy releases. Leaving me still unable to get a semi-fresh glibc. -- Carl Fink nitpick...@nitpicking.com Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations! Stupid mistakes you can correct! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910110234.ga26...@panix.com
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:00:33 -0400, Carl Fink wrote: On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:12:35PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote: Some non-packaged software, e.g. the BOINC client, requires a relatively recent version of glibc. There always be some package that requires some version for some library. This loop can only be broken when using rolling-alike linux distributions (or you have the patience to do the manual job without breaking a current system). Wheezy, the latest non-unstable version of Debian, is stuck at 2.13, released 1.5 years ago, and since it is frozen there won't be a new glibc available for some undetermined amount of time probably not less than six months. Sid also shares the same version since July, very recent. So aside from waiting for jessie to exist, what are my options? Your options for today? Self-compiling. Your options for the long-term? Sticking to Sid. Has anyone tried installing glibc from unstable in a Wheezy system? How usable is sid, these days? No, too dangerous to my taste. Never mind, I just checked and Sid is also running 2.13. Apparently I'd have to use ANOTHER DISTRO to get a glibc less than 18 months old. Really? Developers: really? The core of developers are not here. I gauess the only way to get an answer to the above rhetorical question would be to file a bug against glibc--that's how to reach the glibc team, right? Maybe there's a compelling reason for still using such old version of glibc but asking to people in charge is not going to do any bad. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k2krae$77j$2...@ger.gmane.org
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Carl Fink c...@finknetwork.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:50:36AM +0100, Brian wrote: On Sun 09 Sep 2012 at 19:00:33 -0400, Carl Fink wrote: Never mind, I just checked and Sid is also running 2.13. Apparently I'd have to use ANOTHER DISTRO to get a glibc less than 18 months old. Really? Developers: really? I gauess the only way to get an answer to the above rhetorical question would be to file a bug against glibc--that's how to reach the glibc team, right? Maybe first read the thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00466.html A thread in which someone says the only way to proceed is to file a bug against glibc, and another gives a way to reach the glibc team? Apparently even Sid won't be updated with anything newer until after Wheezy releases, and not soon after that. So what do people think of Arch Linux as my next years-worth of Linux? Not a fan of the Arch user culture at all. Also not a fan of their crazy packaging system, to the extent that I have been exposed to it. I can't speak for others, but if I really needed a newer glibc that bad, I wold probably add Ubuntu to my sources.list, and make a hybrid. For glibc, you might end up pulling in a lot of packages... Later, when Debian gets it you can roll back into pure Debian. You have to be very comfortable with resolving crazy apt conflicts to pull this off though, which is why I can't necessarily recommend it for others. But I can't imagine needing a new glibc that badly. Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAFoWM=8ebfvatzrtn47ruxuoaamdpzc0f+tf5tcbgrkcj-r...@mail.gmail.com
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Lu, 10 sep 12, 09:06:56, Kelly Clowers wrote: I can't speak for others, but if I really needed a newer glibc that bad, I wold probably add Ubuntu to my sources.list, and make a hybrid. For glibc, you might end up pulling in a lot of packages... Later, when Debian gets it you can roll back into pure Debian. You have to be very comfortable with resolving crazy apt conflicts to pull this off though, which is why I can't necessarily recommend it for others. But I can't imagine needing a new glibc that badly. glibc from Ubuntu?!?! I got the shivers just by reading your mail :p Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Kelly Clowers kelly.clow...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Carl Fink c...@finknetwork.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:50:36AM +0100, Brian wrote: On Sun 09 Sep 2012 at 19:00:33 -0400, Carl Fink wrote: Never mind, I just checked and Sid is also running 2.13. Apparently I'd have to use ANOTHER DISTRO to get a glibc less than 18 months old. Maybe first read the thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00466.html A thread in which someone says the only way to proceed is to file a bug against glibc, and another gives a way to reach the glibc team? Apparently even Sid won't be updated with anything newer until after Wheezy releases, and not soon after that. So what do people think of Arch Linux as my next years-worth of Linux? Not a fan of the Arch user culture at all. Also not a fan of their crazy packaging system, to the extent that I have been exposed to it. From my limited use of Arch, I have nothing bad to say about the Arch user culture and nothing but good things to say about its packages and its packaging system. Different strokes for different folks... I can't speak for others, but if I really needed a newer glibc that bad, I wold probably add Ubuntu to my sources.list, and make a hybrid. For glibc, you might end up pulling in a lot of packages... If I were to install an Ubuntu package on Debian - *IF* - I wouldn't add any Ubuntu repository to sources.list. I'd download the deb file and install it with dpkg. It may be less work to install Arch (or Ubuntu 12.10, which has the latest glibc, 2.14) but, if you want to have the latest glibc on Debian, you could get the source from eglibc.org, rebuild the binary packages that come from it, and install them; assuming that nothing on your system'll choke on the new version. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=sw+lukaqfkvhngms420+ggh7yjgbkn6zaywntkqv8w...@mail.gmail.com
glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
Some non-packaged software, e.g. the BOINC client, requires a relatively recent version of glibc. Wheezy, the latest non-unstable version of Debian, is stuck at 2.13, released 1.5 years ago, and since it is frozen there won't be a new glibc available for some undetermined amount of time probably not less than six months. So aside from waiting for jessie to exist, what are my options? Has anyone tried installing glibc from unstable in a Wheezy system? How usable is sid, these days? Thanks. -- Carl Fink nitpick...@nitpicking.com Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations! Stupid mistakes you can correct! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120909211235.ga11...@panix.com
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:12:35PM -0400, Carl Fink wrote: Some non-packaged software, e.g. the BOINC client, requires a relatively recent version of glibc. Wheezy, the latest non-unstable version of Debian, is stuck at 2.13, released 1.5 years ago, and since it is frozen there won't be a new glibc available for some undetermined amount of time probably not less than six months. So aside from waiting for jessie to exist, what are my options? Has anyone tried installing glibc from unstable in a Wheezy system? How usable is sid, these days? Never mind, I just checked and Sid is also running 2.13. Apparently I'd have to use ANOTHER DISTRO to get a glibc less than 18 months old. Really? Developers: really? I gauess the only way to get an answer to the above rhetorical question would be to file a bug against glibc--that's how to reach the glibc team, right? -- Carl Fink nitpick...@nitpicking.com Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations! Stupid mistakes you can correct! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120909230033.ga1...@panix.com
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Sun 09 Sep 2012 at 19:00:33 -0400, Carl Fink wrote: Never mind, I just checked and Sid is also running 2.13. Apparently I'd have to use ANOTHER DISTRO to get a glibc less than 18 months old. Really? Developers: really? I gauess the only way to get an answer to the above rhetorical question would be to file a bug against glibc--that's how to reach the glibc team, right? Maybe first read the thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00466.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120909235036.GV24280@desktop
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On 09/09/2012 02:12 PM, Carl Fink wrote: Some non-packaged software, e.g. the BOINC client, requires a relatively recent version of glibc. BOINC 7.0.27 migrated to wheezy about a month ago (and is thus listed on http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=boinc ). Before then, I was using the packaging from sid without any issues. I can't address your wider question, but as a frequent user of boinc-client, I figured I should point that out :) -- Robert Wall rob...@rww.name OpenPGP: D722 7F0A F510 A3F7 8123 6382 B650 13A4 9375 5E08 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: glibc version in Wheezy--any way to use 2.15?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:50:36AM +0100, Brian wrote: On Sun 09 Sep 2012 at 19:00:33 -0400, Carl Fink wrote: Never mind, I just checked and Sid is also running 2.13. Apparently I'd have to use ANOTHER DISTRO to get a glibc less than 18 months old. Really? Developers: really? I gauess the only way to get an answer to the above rhetorical question would be to file a bug against glibc--that's how to reach the glibc team, right? Maybe first read the thread starting at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00466.html A thread in which someone says the only way to proceed is to file a bug against glibc, and another gives a way to reach the glibc team? Apparently even Sid won't be updated with anything newer until after Wheezy releases, and not soon after that. So what do people think of Arch Linux as my next years-worth of Linux? -- Carl Fink nitpick...@nitpicking.com Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations! Stupid mistakes you can correct! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910012316.gb6...@panix.com
Re: mkinitrd and glibc version problem in etch
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:14:54PM +, Richard Lyons wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 04:25:02PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: What warnings did you get about LVM? It is rather nice to be able to resize partitions, but also migrate partitions of of failing drives. On all my old boxes (that are still new enough to run Debian), drive failures start with wierd error messages. Using LVM, I can migrate the data onto more reliable drives, then stress-test the failing ones to either get them working or just ditch them. Yes it all sounds idyllic, which is why I allowed the installer to do its default thing and install lvm and choose its own partitioning -- I assumed it was simple to resize and extend later. Then when I came to read the man pages and google for advice on the rather inscrutable commands to re-allocate the space between the partitions, there seemed to be warnings of terrible possible data losses. I am sorry, but I don't remember the details. I asked on this list and got little solace, tried to shrink one partition in order to expand another, and found that it was impossible, and gave up rather feebly. Something like that, anyway. As I said, I am at home with fdisk and parted. And can boot from knoppix and copy a whole partition off when I need to, whereas knoppix doesn't seem to know about the lvm partitions. Probably my lack of knowledge, though: I am sure knoppix can mount the LVM in capable hands. I expect I am just showing my age. I've never bothered to figure out how to get a LiveCD to mount my LVM (some of which is sitting on top of raid1). The way it works is that the kernel should boot. If it doesn't, there's the installer CD in rescue mode. Some filesystem types allow shrinking, others don't. If you need to shrink one and the filesystem doesn't allow it, you have to create a new LV, put a new filesystem on it, move the data, and remove the old LV. The best HOWTO is the LVM howto in the doc-linux package (from tldp.org). The trick is to be aware of the layers and to resize things at the right layer. Yes the concept is complicated, but the actual useage is rather magical. Whatever floats your boat. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mkinitrd and glibc version problem in etch
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:13:48AM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 10:14:54PM +, Richard Lyons wrote: [..] As I said, I am at home with fdisk and parted. And can boot from knoppix and copy a whole partition off when I need to, whereas knoppix doesn't seem to know about the lvm partitions. Probably my lack of knowledge, though: I am sure knoppix can mount the LVM in capable hands. I expect I am just showing my age. I've never bothered to figure out how to get a LiveCD to mount my LVM (some of which is sitting on top of raid1). The way it works is that the kernel should boot. If it doesn't, there's the installer CD in rescue mode. Some filesystem types allow shrinking, others don't. If you need to shrink one and the filesystem doesn't allow it, you have to create a new LV, put a new filesystem on it, move the data, and remove the old LV. The best HOWTO is the LVM howto in the doc-linux package (from tldp.org). The trick is to be aware of the layers and to resize things at the right layer. Yes the concept is complicated, but the actual useage is rather magical. Whatever floats your boat. It really does seem that I shall have to find time to get round LVM some day. Thanks for your input, Doug. -- richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mkinitrd and glibc version problem in etch
Hi all. Silly situation: I have been wanting to release my etch install from the LVM so as to be able to adjust the partitioning. The arrangement was: /dev/mapper/Debian-root on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro) /dev/hda1 on /boot type ext3 (rw) /dev/mapper/Debian-home on /home type ext3 (rw) /dev/mapper/Debian-tmp on /tmp type ext3 (rw) /dev/hdb2 on /usr type ext3 (rw) /dev/mapper/Debian-var on /var type ext3 (rw) /dev/hdb2 on /usr type ext3 (rw) /usr used also to be in the LVM, but I ran out of space so I simply copied to hdb (which is 80GB, against 20GB of hda). Obviously /home and /tmp present no problems - I can simply copy them wherever I want and remount. I decided to copy the root partition and var to two new partitons on hdb, then mount the new root to /mnt/hdb13 (or whatever) and mount all the other filesystems into that, mount -o bind /dev /mnt/hdb13, and mount -t proc none /mnt/hdb13 so as to be able to chroot there and make a new initrd. But this gave me # mkinitramfs -o boot/initrd.img-2.6.18-5-686r -r /dev/hdb13 2.6.18-5-686 find: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by find) find: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by find) find: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by find) find: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by find) find: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by find) locale: Cannot set LC_ALL to default locale: No such file or directory find: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by find) Problem 1: How do I solve that? Problem 2: I had the bright idea to install another kernel while in the chroot, and let the install make its own initrd. I saw in aptitude that linux-image-2.6.18-6-686 was available (the current kernel was 2.6.18-5-686). But this also failed to install, so I tried to remove it prior to finding the relevant glibc. The removal failed too: /usr/bin/perl: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by /usr/bin/perl) Selecting previously deselected package linux-image-2.6.18-6-686. (Reading database ... dpkg: serious warning: files list file for package `linux-image-2.6.18-6-686' missing, assuming package has no files currently installed. 183622 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace linux-image-2.6.18-6-686 2.6.18.dfsg.1-18etch1 (using .../linux-image-2.6.18-6-686_2.6.18.dfsg.1-18etch1_i386.deb) ... /usr/bin/perl: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by /usr/bin/perl) dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-2.6.18-6-686_2.6.18.dfsg.1-18etch1_i386.deb (--unpack): subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 /usr/bin/perl: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by /usr/bin/perl). ...and now aptitude and apt are blocked from any further action. I cannot see anything glibc-ish 2.3.6 in the package list. Obviously, I am doing something daft, but what? (other than having tried to fix something that wasn't broke). -- richard PS apologies if this gets duplicated, but the list is apparently blocking my mail so I had to resend port-forwarded to another server. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mkinitrd and glibc version problem in etch
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:16:34PM +, Richard Lyons wrote: Silly situation: I have been wanting to release my etch install from the LVM so as to be able to adjust the partitioning. The arrangement was: [snip: old LVM setup] See my note at the bottom. /usr used also to be in the LVM, but I ran out of space so I simply Obviously /home and /tmp present no problems - I can simply copy them wherever I want and remount. see my note at the bottom too. Problem 1: How do I solve that? I don't know as you can. When things are on an LV, the initrd is made to work with this. When things are on normal partitons, the initrd is made to work with that. The fix involves remaking the initrd but I have never done that. Problem 2: I had the bright idea to install another kernel while in the chroot, and let the install make its own initrd. I saw in aptitude that whilst you were in the midst of problem number 1? linux-image-2.6.18-6-686 was available (the current kernel was 2.6.18-5-686). But this also failed to install, so I tried to remove it prior to finding the relevant glibc. The removal failed too: /usr/bin/perl: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by /usr/bin/perl) Selecting previously deselected package linux-image-2.6.18-6-686. (Reading database ... dpkg: serious warning: files list file for package `linux-image-2.6.18-6-686' missing, assuming package has no files currently installed. 183622 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace linux-image-2.6.18-6-686 2.6.18.dfsg.1-18etch1 (using .../linux-image-2.6.18-6-686_2.6.18.dfsg.1-18etch1_i386.deb) ... /usr/bin/perl: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by /usr/bin/perl) dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/linux-image-2.6.18-6-686_2.6.18.dfsg.1-18etch1_i386.deb (--unpack): subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 1 /usr/bin/perl: /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.4' not found (required by /usr/bin/perl). ...and now aptitude and apt are blocked from any further action. I cannot see anything glibc-ish 2.3.6 in the package list. Obviously, I am doing something daft, but what? (other than having tried to fix something that wasn't broke). Yes. I don't see why, if you're already on LVM and you need more space, you didn't just add the extra partition as a PV and add that to the VG then enlarge the LVs appropriately, then finally resize the filesystems to match. Simple (no, really it is simpler than describing). Is this a straight Etch (nothing else)? If so, why would your perl need a non-existant libc6. I hope you kept backups and if not, make a full set before you do anything else. That is, copy /home and /etc plus anything in /usr/local, /var, /var/local, or /opt that you would want. This sounds like its spirilling towards a reinstall. Sure it may be recoverable by extraordinary measures, but a reinstall may be faster. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mkinitrd and glibc version problem in etch
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:22:59PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:16:34PM +, Richard Lyons wrote: Silly situation: I have been wanting to release my etch install from the LVM so as to be able to adjust the partitioning. The arrangement [...] Problem 1: How do I solve that? I don't know as you can. When things are on an LV, the initrd is made to work with this. When things are on normal partitons, the initrd is made to work with that. The fix involves remaking the initrd but I have never done that. That is exactly where I was, like a chroot install or a gentoo install... Problem 2: I had the bright idea to install another kernel while in the chroot, and let the install make its own initrd. I saw in aptitude that whilst you were in the midst of problem number 1? Well, exactly because of it. Usually a new kernel install makes a new initrd, so I assumed it would bring enough tools to do so. [...] I am doing something daft, but what? (other than having tried to fix something that wasn't broke). Yes. I don't see why, if you're already on LVM and you need more space, you didn't just add the extra partition as a PV and add that to the VG It looked very complicated and came with all sorts of warnings. With conventional partitions, I know where I am. fdisk and parted are my (old) friends. [...] Is this a straight Etch (nothing else)? If so, why would your perl need a non-existant libc6. It was installed before etch became stable, and perhaps not quite up to date. It seems this must be the source of the problem. Though nothing else ever complained. And even sound worked -- which it doesn't under sid, which I did just try out on another partition. I always used to run sid, years ago, but now looks like a tricky moment to go there -- quite a few important (to me) things are broken. It's okay if you are running sid in a workable state, you can just wait your moment to update stuff, but when you are going to jump in you are committed to a snapshot (or a lot of work). I hope you kept backups and if not, make a full set before you do anything else. That is, copy /home and /etc plus anything in /usr/local, /var, /var/local, or /opt that you would want. This sounds like its spirilling towards a reinstall. Sure it may be recoverable by extraordinary measures, but a reinstall may be faster. Yes, I think you are right. yesterday I was in denial, but I'm getting used to the idea. I'd better erase the LVM and repartition hda, then install etch cleanly and swap back in my /home, /usr/local, most of the rest of /usr, /var/www, ... and then copy selected bits of /etc too. It is not so much a question of backups, as most of the variable user data is already on separate partitions. A pity. It was running sweetly enough before. Thanks, Doug -- richard PS Apologies if duplicated. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mkinitrd and glibc version problem in etch
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 07:14:02PM +, Richard Lyons wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:22:59PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:16:34PM +, Richard Lyons wrote: I hope you kept backups and if not, make a full set before you do anything else. That is, copy /home and /etc plus anything in /usr/local, /var, /var/local, or /opt that you would want. This sounds like its spirilling towards a reinstall. Sure it may be recoverable by extraordinary measures, but a reinstall may be faster. Yes, I think you are right. yesterday I was in denial, but I'm getting used to the idea. I'd better erase the LVM and repartition hda, then install etch cleanly and swap back in my /home, /usr/local, most of the rest of /usr, /var/www, ... and then copy selected bits of /etc too. It is not so much a question of backups, as most of the variable user data is already on separate partitions. A pity. It was running sweetly enough before. What warnings did you get about LVM? It is rather nice to be able to resize partitions, but also migrate partitions of of failing drives. On all my old boxes (that are still new enough to run Debian), drive failures start with wierd error messages. Using LVM, I can migrate the data onto more reliable drives, then stress-test the failing ones to either get them working or just ditch them. Doug. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mkinitrd and glibc version problem in etch
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 04:25:02PM -0500, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: What warnings did you get about LVM? It is rather nice to be able to resize partitions, but also migrate partitions of of failing drives. On all my old boxes (that are still new enough to run Debian), drive failures start with wierd error messages. Using LVM, I can migrate the data onto more reliable drives, then stress-test the failing ones to either get them working or just ditch them. Yes it all sounds idyllic, which is why I allowed the installer to do its default thing and install lvm and choose its own partitioning -- I assumed it was simple to resize and extend later. Then when I came to read the man pages and google for advice on the rather inscrutable commands to re-allocate the space between the partitions, there seemed to be warnings of terrible possible data losses. I am sorry, but I don't remember the details. I asked on this list and got little solace, tried to shrink one partition in order to expand another, and found that it was impossible, and gave up rather feebly. Something like that, anyway. As I said, I am at home with fdisk and parted. And can boot from knoppix and copy a whole partition off when I need to, whereas knoppix doesn't seem to know about the lvm partitions. Probably my lack of knowledge, though: I am sure knoppix can mount the LVM in capable hands. I expect I am just showing my age. -- richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
glibc - Version?
Hallo allerseits, wie kann ich herausfinden, welche Version der glibc auf meinem Rechner werkelt? MfG. Peter. -- Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ): http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/ Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] mit dem Subject unsubscribe. Probleme? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (engl)
Re: glibc - Version?
* P. Theisen wrote: wie kann ich herausfinden, welche Version der glibc auf meinem Rechner werkelt? dpkg -l libc6 Norbert -- Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ): http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/ Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] mit dem Subject unsubscribe. Probleme? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (engl)
Re: glibc - Version?
Hallo, Am Di, den 30.12.2003 schrieb P. Theisen um 14:10: [..] wie kann ich herausfinden, welche Version der glibc auf meinem Rechner werkelt? [..] Eigentlich kann man mehrere Versionen der glibc installieren. Wenn das der fall ist kannst du dir für jedes Programm über ldd die benutzten Biblothecken ansehen. z.B. # ldd $(which emacs) libXaw3d.so.6 = /usr/X11R6/lib/libXaw3d.so.6 (0x40018000) libXmu.so.6 = /usr/X11R6/lib/libXmu.so.6 (0x40064000) libXt.so.6 = /usr/X11R6/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x4007a000) libSM.so.6 = /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x400cb000) libICE.so.6 = /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x400d4000) libXext.so.6 = /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x400eb000) libtiff.so.3 = /usr/lib/libtiff.so.3 (0x40109000) libjpeg.so.62 = /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x4014d000) libpng12.so.0 = /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 (0x4016b000) libz.so.1 = /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x4018c000) libm.so.6 = /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x4019d000) libXpm.so.4 = /usr/X11R6/lib/libXpm.so.4 (0x401c) libX11.so.6 = /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x401cf000) libncurses.so.5 = /lib/libncurses.so.5 (0x40296000) +- libc.so.6 = /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x402d5000) | /lib/ld-linux.so.2 = /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000) | libdl.so.2 = /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0x4040e000) | Das ist die glibc. ( $(which emacs) verwende ich um nicht den kompletten Pfad angeben zu müssen. which sieht in den Verzeichnissen in $PATH nach wo das Programm zu finden ist.) mfg. Johannes -- Haeufig gestellte Fragen und Antworten (FAQ): http://www.de.debian.org/debian-user-german-FAQ/ Zum AUSTRAGEN schicken Sie eine Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] mit dem Subject unsubscribe. Probleme? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (engl)
Actualizar glibc version 2.1.3 a 2.2 o mayor
Tengo debian 2.2 r 6 y necesito instalar firebird que requiere una version 2.2. Donde la consigoi y como la instalo Saludos y gracias Eduardo Beltran -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: glibc version
I want to install Oracle 8i on my woody box. The Oracle installation requires glibc 2.1.3 version. I was looking for glibc package, but i didn't found it. The only package that names glibc is libstdc++ What package should I install to satisfy the glibc 2.1.3 requirement? thanks snip libc6 2.1.3 is in Debian Stable. Wouldn't downgrading libc6 to 2.1.3 on a woody/sid box break your system? This happened to me (see my previous thread libc6 downgraded; system won't boot on p. 8 of the August debian-users archive). In that case, someone installed libc6 2.1.3 over libc6 2.2.3, and immediately the system became unusable (everything complained about libc.so.6 not being found), and subsequently could not even boot. Thanks to John Patton for his earlier suggestions to fix that problem, by the way. I ended up completely reinstalling due to a stupid mistake on my part, so never got as far as trying his fix. Bruce
Re: glibc version
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 05:56:58PM -0700, Jason Majors wrote: but anyway...your answers: glibc == libc6 Woody meets that requirement. You might need libc6-dev too for headers and such. Are there different versions of libc available? What if you are using Woody (glibc 2.2), and need support for glibc2.1? I know you can do both libc5 and libc6 (glibc2.x), but can you do different versions of glibc? My understanding is that glibc2.1 and glibc2.2 broke binary compatibility. Looked for it earlier (to unstaill SimCity3000), and couldn't find 2.1 -- John__ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Quis custodiet ipsos custodes icq: thales @ 17755648 # I'm subscribed to this list, no need to cc: ##
Re: glibc version
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 11:01:12PM -0700, John L. Fjellstad wrote: Are there different versions of libc available? What if you are using Woody (glibc 2.2), and need support for glibc2.1? I know you can do both libc5 and libc6 (glibc2.x), but can you do different versions of glibc? My understanding is that glibc2.1 and glibc2.2 broke binary compatibility. You're thinking of glibc2.0 to glibc2.1, and even then it only broke some programs that used undocumented interfaces to the library. glibc2.1 to glibc2.2 is perfectly fine; there are lots of packages in Debian that haven't needed new uploads since glibc2.2 arrived and that still work, and I've just spent the last day and a half testing proprietary code at work that was compiled for glibc2.1 and running on glibc2.2 without any problems. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
glibc version
Hi all. I want to install Oracle 8i on my woody box. The Oracle installation requires glibc 2.1.3 version. I was looking for glibc package, but i didn't found it. The only package that names glibc is libstdc++ What package should I install to satisfy the glibc 2.1.3 requirement? thanks __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Re: glibc version
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 05:28:25PM -0700, Eduardo Gargiulo wrote: | Hi all. | | I want to install Oracle 8i on my woody box. | The Oracle installation requires glibc 2.1.3 version. | I was looking for glibc package, but i didn't found | it. | The only package that names glibc is libstdc++ It's called libc6 | What package should I install to satisfy the glibc 2.1.3 | requirement? The libc6 package that is in potato. -D
Re: glibc version
ethics debate RMS would be very disappointed if he knew you wanted to install Oracle... /ethics debate but anyway...your answers: glibc == libc6 Woody meets that requirement. You might need libc6-dev too for headers and such. On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 05:28:25PM -0700, Eduardo Gargiulo scribbled... Hi all. I want to install Oracle 8i on my woody box. The Oracle installation requires glibc 2.1.3 version. I was looking for glibc package, but i didn't found it. The only package that names glibc is libstdc++ What package should I install to satisfy the glibc 2.1.3 requirement? thanks __ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: glibc version
On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 05:56:58PM -0700, Jason Majors wrote: | You might need libc6-dev too for headers and such. Not likely -- I doubt Oracle gave him the source :-). -D
Re: glibc version
On Tuesday 21 August 2001 04:28 pm, Eduardo Gargiulo wrote: Hi all. I want to install Oracle 8i on my woody box. The Oracle installation requires glibc 2.1.3 version. I was looking for glibc package, but i didn't found it. The only package that names glibc is libstdc++ What package should I install to satisfy the glibc 2.1.3 requirement? thanks snip libc6 2.1.3 is in Debian Stable. Greg Madden
