Hi. I searched the archives about this and found a thread or two that
was relevant, but they were more than 3 years old. At that time, the
issue was caused by moving ldd from ldso to libc6.
I have a woody system that I recently installed fresh. I have libc6
2.2.5-6. I don't have ldd, which
Gregory T. Norris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/usr/bin/ldd is one of the dynamic-linker utilities, and is provided by
the ldso package. It definately ought to be present... I'd suggesr
reinstalling ldso.
hmm... ok i am a newbie, how do i do that?
or can i just
I'd probably just snarf the package off the Debian website. Go to
http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/base/ldso.html, and you should
be given the option of downloading the debfile. Once completed, do
``dpkg -i ldso*.deb'' (as root).
Note: I'm assuming that you're running the stable branch
hi,
while compiling my kernel (and pine, but that's smth else), i get an error,
saying missing ldd or smth like that (should be in usr/bin/ ?)
what is ldd? it isnt a package in Debian, i think... is it smth special?
B
), i get an error,
saying missing ldd or smth like that (should be in usr/bin/ ?)
what is ldd? it isnt a package in Debian, i think... is it smth special?
On Mon, May 24, 1999 at 10:49:23PM +0200, Ingo Hohmann wrote:
...
As ldd seems not to be installed, which package provides it?
...
OK, I found it now, it was in the ldso package, I
reinstalled it, et voila!
I still have no clue, why it hasn't been installed
the first time around.
thanks to all
Subject: Re: missing ldd
Date: Tue, May 25, 1999 at 10:24:39PM +0200
In reply to:Ingo Hohmann
Quoting Ingo Hohmann([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
in reply to both messages ...
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 01:46:36AM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
...
As ldd seems not to be installed, which
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Wayne Topa wrote:
So? I don't understand. Do you have ldso installed or not?
libc6 doesn't provide ldd, ldso does.
In potato, libc6 does. Apparently ldso does in slink.
Subject: Re: missing ldd
Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 12:07:37AM -0500
In reply to:Brad
Quoting Brad([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Wayne Topa wrote:
So? I don't understand. Do you have ldso installed or not?
libc6 doesn't provide ldd, ldso does.
In potato
On 26-May-99 Brad wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Wayne Topa wrote:
So? I don't understand. Do you have ldso installed or not?
libc6 doesn't provide ldd, ldso does.
In potato, libc6 does. Apparently ldso does in slink.
Yes, that is what I recall. On my system, 'dpkg -S ldd' says that ldd
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 01:14:47AM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
Subject: Re: missing ldd
Date: Wed, May 26, 1999 at 12:07:37AM -0500
In reply to:Brad
Quoting Brad([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Tue, 25 May 1999, Wayne Topa wrote:
So? I don't understand. Do you have ldso
When I run
debian/rules binary
in the gnurobots source dir, it exits with:
dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: cannot exec ldd: No such file or directory
dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: ldd on `debian/tmp/usr/games/grobots' gave error exit
status 2
dh_shlibdeps: command returned error code
make: ***
On 24-May-99 Ingo Hohmann wrote:
When I run
debian/rules binary
in the gnurobots source dir, it exits with:
dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: cannot exec ldd: No such file or directory
dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: ldd on `debian/tmp/usr/games/grobots' gave error
exit status 2
dh_shlibdeps:
Subject: missing ldd
Date: Mon, May 24, 1999 at 10:49:23PM +0200
In reply to:Ingo Hohmann
Quoting Ingo Hohmann([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
When I run
debian/rules binary
in the gnurobots source dir, it exits with:
dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: cannot exec ldd: No such file
in reply to both messages ...
On Tue, May 25, 1999 at 01:46:36AM -0400, Wayne Topa wrote:
...
As ldd seems not to be installed, which package provides it?
Try dpgg -S ldd
I've tried it:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ingo dpkg -S ldd
ldso: /usr/man/man1/ldd.1.gz
tetex-base:
If you need your machine for real work then you shouldn't be running
unstable.
If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
work on systems which aren't appropriate for real work.
I agree
Seth,
If you want support information like this sugar-coated, you can write it
yourself, you can run it through debian-publicity first, you can make it
however you want. I really don't care. Just so *someone* writes it and
posts it to the appropriate lists. That's being part of the solution.
--
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 01:10:44PM -0800, David Bristel wrote:
This is a good point, and it actually leads to an interesting idea
for a package that would take care of this issue. Now, this is NOT
an easy project, but, what about a package that has a list of the
config files for ALL the
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 02:10:20PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
If you need your machine for real work then you shouldn't be running
unstable.
If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
debian is going to end
On Sunday 14 March 1999, at 16 h 57, the keyboard of Robert Woodcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those of you who are tracking unstable but are too chicken to install the
new glibc 2.1 may have noticed that your ldd has disappeared.
May be these chickens are people who have some work to do.
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 11:16:18AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
May be these chickens are people who have some work to do. These sarcasms or
those of Edward Betts will not convince people that Debian is a serious
distribution, intended for real work.
Quite frankly, unstable isn't
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 11:16:18AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sunday 14 March 1999, at 16 h 57, the keyboard of Robert Woodcock
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those of you who are tracking unstable but are too chicken to install the
new glibc 2.1 may have noticed that your ldd has
May be these chickens are people who have some work to do. These sarcasms
or
those of Edward Betts will not convince people that Debian is a serious
distribution, intended for real work.
If you need your machine for real work then you shouldn't be running
unstable.
If
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
If you need your machine for real work then you shouldn't be running
unstable.
If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
work on systems which
If you need your machine for real work then you shouldn't be running
unstable.
If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
work on systems which aren't appropriate for real work.
If
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
Okay, let's not turn this into a flame war. My point is that
breakages in unstable are *REALLY BAD THINGS*.
I have no intention of flaming anybody; from my standpoint, at least,
everything I say is sober and reasonable. Everyone else's
@lists.debian.org, debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on
hold? Get ldso from slink...
Resent-Date: 17 Mar 1999 20:22:15 -
Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
If you need your
On Wed, Mar 17, 1999 at 02:19:05PM -0500, Seth M. Landsman wrote:
If debian unstable isn't tested on machines used for real work,
debian is going to end up a toy distribution which is only suitable for
work on systems which aren't appropriate for real work.
Think about it.
Seth,
Those of you who are tracking unstable but are too chicken to install the
new glibc 2.1 may have noticed that your ldd has disappeared.
That's because /usr/bin/ldd moved from the ldso package to the libc6
package. Therefore if you're using a new ldso package and an old libc6
package, you won't
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 04:57:05PM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or
actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1.
so what's likely to break if i upgrade to glibc 2.1? will i still be
left with a (mostly) usable system?
(i'm willing to
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 02:44:51PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or
actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1.
so what's likely to break if i upgrade to glibc 2.1? will i still be
left with a (mostly) usable system?
(i'm
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 02:44:51PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 04:57:05PM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or
actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1.
so what's likely to break if i upgrade to glibc 2.1?
On Mon, Mar 15, 1999 at 02:44:51PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 04:57:05PM -0800, Robert Woodcock wrote:
The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or
actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1.
so what's likely to break if i upgrade to glibc 2.1?
33 matches
Mail list logo
