Missing ldd
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 is supposedly part of this package. What's the deal? Should I force a reinstall of this package? If so, what's the best way? I'm a bit hesitant to poke around with a critial package. Thanks, Brian trixie:~# dpkg --audit trixie:~# dpkg -l libc6 ldso Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name VersionDescription +++-==-==- ii libc6 2.2.5-6GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone ii ldso 1.9.11-15 The Linux dynamic linker and library for lib trixie:~# dpkg -L libc6 | grep ldd /usr/bin/lddlibc4 trixie:~# dpkg -S ldd scrollkeeper: /usr/bin/scrollkeeper-rebuilddb dpkg-dev: /usr/share/man/man1/dpkg-checkbuilddeps.1.gz libc6: /usr/bin/lddlibc4 dpkg-dev: /usr/share/man/ja/man1/dpkg-checkbuilddeps.1.gz dpkg-dev: /usr/bin/dpkg-checkbuilddeps scrollkeeper: /usr/share/man/man8/scrollkeeper-rebuilddb.8.gz trixie:~# which ldd trixie:~# locate ldd /usr/bin/dpkg-checkbuilddeps /usr/bin/lddlibc4 /usr/bin/scrollkeeper-rebuilddb /usr/share/man/ja/man1/dpkg-checkbuilddeps.1.gz /usr/share/man/man1/dpkg-checkbuilddeps.1.gz /usr/share/man/man8/scrollkeeper-rebuilddb.8.gz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: missing LDD in Linux
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 copy ldd from someone else his system (debian off course)? thx B
Re: missing LDD in Linux
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 (2.1, codenamed ``slink'') of Debian, and not the pre-release of unstable (``potato''). The URL listed above is slightly different in the latter case. On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 05:57:51PM +0200, Puam wrote: 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 copy ldd from someone else his system (debian off course)?
missing LDD in Linux
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
Re: missing LDD in Linux
/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. On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 11:18:59PM +0200, Bruno Van de Casteele wrote: 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?
Re: missing ldd - SOLVED
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 Ingo -- Ingo Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: missing ldd
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 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: /usr/lib/texmf/fonts/source/public/cm/olddig.mf ldso: /usr/lib/lddstub debhelper: /usr/man/man1/dh_builddeb.1.gz debhelper: /usr/bin/dh_builddeb I have libc6 Version: 2.0.7.19981211-6 libc6-dev is also installed. So? I don't understand. Do you have ldso installed or not? libc6 doesn't provide ldd, ldso does. Am I missing something in your question??? Package: ldso Version: 1.9.10-1 Priority: required Description: The Linux dynamic linker, library and utilities. The dynamic linker provides the user-level support for loading and linking DLL and ELF shared libraries. It is required by any program that uses shared libraries. . WARNING: Do NOT downgrade this package to version 1.8.x or earlier. Doing so may leave your system in an unusable state. installed-size: 371 source: ld.so ... -- Ingo Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- You have a tendency to feel you are superior to most computers ___ Wayne T. Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: missing ldd
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.
Re: missing ldd
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, libc6 does. Apparently ldso does in slink. Ahh, I guess I didn't take enough mind reading courses. I guess I shouldn't answer questions that don't include enough info. That might not bea a bad idea. Most of the requests are for info that is available on the system anyway. Thanks Brad, I have a potato partition but his question didn't even make me think of that. Oh well, I tried. Wayne -- Information Center, n.: A room staffed by professional computer people whose job it is to tell you why you cannot have the information you require. ___ Wayne T. Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: missing ldd
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 came from libc6 but I recall when I used Slink, I had to reinstall ldso to get ldd back. -- Andrew
Re: missing 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 installed or not? libc6 doesn't provide ldd, ldso does. In potato, libc6 does. Apparently ldso does in slink. Ahh, I guess I didn't take enough mind reading courses. ... Sorry, this was my fault then, but to me it was perfectly clear what system I use. Hmmm, maybe I should try to think before I write. Anyway, I've got - Debian/Gnu Linux 2.1 - Kernel 2.2.4 - Package: ldso Version: 1.9.10-1 - Package: libc6 Version: 2.0.7.19981211-6 - Package: libc6-dev Version: 2.0.7.19981211-6 (have I forgotten anything?) I've got not - ldd the only entries resembling are /usr/lib/lddstub /usr/man/man1/ldd.1.gz which are installed by ldso (dpkg -L ldso) Time to reget and reinstall??? Ingo -- Ingo Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
missing ldd
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: *** [binary-arch] Error 1 As ldd seems not to be installed, which package provides it? thanks in advance Ingo Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: missing ldd
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: command returned error code make: *** [binary-arch] Error 1 As ldd seems not to be installed, which package provides it? I believe it is libc6. I have libc6 version 2.1.x and it provided ldd. -- Andrew
Re: missing ldd
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 or directory dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: ldd on `debian/tmp/usr/games/grobots' gave error exit status 2 dh_shlibdeps: command returned error code make: *** [binary-arch] Error 1 As ldd seems not to be installed, which package provides it? Try dpgg -S ldd -- Just about every computer on the market today runs Unix, except the Mac (and nobody cares about it). -- Bill Joy 6/21/85 ___ Wayne T. Topa [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: missing ldd
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: /usr/lib/texmf/fonts/source/public/cm/olddig.mf ldso: /usr/lib/lddstub debhelper: /usr/man/man1/dh_builddeb.1.gz debhelper: /usr/bin/dh_builddeb I have libc6 Version: 2.0.7.19981211-6 libc6-dev is also installed. ... -- Ingo Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 wholeheartedly. While one shouldn't complain too much if one runs into problems, real life testing of unstable is important. I do appreciate the heads up warnings about problems in potato though. I plan on moving one of my main servers over to potato as soon as the apache-ssl/common conflict gets straightened out. I'll have it track a little behind real potato just to avoid unexpected gotchas, but you're right -- if someone isn't testing unstable how's it ever going to get stable? :-) -- . | Celebrate the Linux WE'RE NEVER GOING OUT Randy | OF BUSINESS SALE by downloading an entire ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | operating system, apps, games, utilities, http://www.golgotha.net | and source code at http://www.debian.org
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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. -- Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I never knew manipulating the masses was so easy. -jt
dbackup (was: Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...)
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 packages, and would back up what is needed to restore a system to normal from a clean install? To have just the shadow, passwd, and the confs for all the different packages, we could back up just these files. Then, reinstall from scratch, ignore configurations, because the restore of the config files would handle it all. Some would say that this should be handled manually, but it would make it nice, and it's something that no other distribution has considered doing. Having to manually back up key files is a major nuisance. 'dbackup' did something similar to but better than this. unfortunately it got orphaned and eventually droppped form the dist. i have a copy still installed and can run dpkg-repack on it if anyone wants to play with it. IIRC, at the moment it outputs a list of filenames which can be fed into cpio or afio or tar etc - this is quite useful. # dpkg -s dbackup Package: dbackup Status: install ok installed Priority: extra Section: admin Maintainer: David H. Silber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Version: 0.1-alpha.2 Recommends: tar | cpio Description: Debian GNU/Linux Data Backup Program. Backup will copy all files that are not part of a Debian package or which have been modified since installation to some backup media. . Actually, at this point it is only true that dbackup produces a list of files which fit the above qualifications. It is up to the user to feed this list to some program (such as tar or cpio) for the actual backup. . I still need to provide user documentation such as a manual page, an info page, examples of use, etc. . I plan to provide a nifty-spiffy administration tool to make the final product easier to use, but this is not yet ready. if nobody else is interested, i may adopt this package myself. i think it's a shame that it vanished from debian. but i probably don't have time. btw, simply backing up a system's conffiles can be done by feeding the output of 'cat /var/lib/dpkg/info/*.conffiles' into tar/cpio/afio etc. craig -- craig sanders
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 up a toy distribution which is only suitable for work on systems which aren't appropriate for real work. If your only PC to do real work on is running an ever-changing, developer-suited version of Debian, then you're really asking for some mission-critical failures. Not having at least a fairly recent backup before upgrading critical libraries is ridiculous, and it doesn't take a developer to know that (I offer myself as evidence on that point). Much as I'd love to have backups of my system, it's just not feasible. I run unstable because I want to test Debian, find bugs, run the latest programs. I read bugs and debian-devel and devel-changes so that I am aware of potential problems. Severe breakages are rare, normally you just need to downgrade a package or two, and that's fine. We really need these test areas to become more standardised - less of the grab it from my home directory and more it's in staging/glibc2.1 or staging/perl5.005. Currently getting packages from Debian unstable/experimental/staging(all over the place)/gnome-debs/enlightenment/etc is in a mess. People should be able to go to _one_ place for all work done by Debian developers. Most of this stems from Debian getting _very_ large quicker than the underlying systems can cope. It looks like the right noises and steps are being made - two years ago apt wasn't known at all, and now :-) Adrian email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett Windows NT - Unix in beta-testing. PGP key available on public key servers Avoid tiresome goat sacrifices -=- use Debian Linux http://www.debian.org
Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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. These sarcasms or those of Edward Betts will not convince people that Debian is a serious distribution, intended for real work. If you just mock people and tell them Be prepared to die for unstable or stay stable like the chicken you are, we will not get a lot of beta-testers. Like Microsoft or RedHat, who perform beta-testing only internally, we will therefore release half-broken stuff. A phase of intermediary testing (intermediary between the Real Hacker and the Pure Chicken) is a necessity to get a new version of an operating system out. And we should respect people who do it.
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 something people should be doing real work in right now. (Real work defined as something where you would be genuinely outraged if something went wrong and you were unable to complete it.) Also take solace in the fact that most computer users (of any OS) do not use their computers for the above definition of real work very often. -- Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I never knew manipulating the masses was so easy. -jt
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 disappeared. 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. -- Stephen Crowley Debian GNU/Linux - http://www.debian.org
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 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 -- It is by will alone I set my mind in motion
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 aren't appropriate for real work. If your only PC to do real work on is running an ever-changing, developer-suited version of Debian, then you're really asking for some mission-critical failures. Not having at least a fairly recent backup before upgrading critical libraries is ridiculous, and it doesn't take a developer to know that (I offer myself as evidence on that point). Hell, I got bit by a similar problem when Slink had been frozen for several weeks (that __register_frame_info business). I had a backup; one rescue floppy and a massive 'tar -zxvpf' later, I was back in business. Yes, potato needs to undergo real-world testing. So if you have an extra machine, run your real work in parallel on potato and slink. But to place so much trust in others' testing that you'll put your vital stuff solely on potato is probably overoptimistic and misguided. -- Mike Renfro / Instructor, Basic Engineering Program 931 372-3601 / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 your only PC to do real work on is running an ever-changing, developer-suited version of Debian, then you're really asking for some mission-critical failures. Not having at least a fairly recent backup before upgrading critical libraries is ridiculous, and it doesn't take a developer to know that (I offer myself as evidence on that point). Okay, let's not turn this into a flame war. My point is that breakages in unstable are *REALLY BAD THINGS*. Yes, they happen, but the attitude that this one comes with is one of it's your problem for trying unstable, not ours. If you manage to alienate the community of people who do real work, debian won't be tested on real work machines and won't be as stable as it should be. You haven't addressed this point. Oh, and my 20 gig DDS is in the shop. Sorry, telling people back up often is getting less realistic. The fact is, my important stuff is backed up in five places, but reinstalling is still a pita. Hell, I got bit by a similar problem when Slink had been frozen for several weeks (that __register_frame_info business). I had a backup; one rescue floppy and a massive 'tar -zxvpf' later, I was back in business. Yes, potato needs to undergo real-world testing. So if you have an extra machine, run your real work in parallel on potato and slink. But to place so much trust in others' testing that you'll put your vital stuff solely on potato is probably overoptimistic and misguided. Most people don't have that extra machine sitting around. -Seth -- It is by will alone I set my mind in motion
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 opinions may, and likely do, differ. And yes, breakages in unstable are bad things, even really bad. But that's what's very likely to happen when you upgrade the major libraries. If you manage to alienate the community of people who do real work, debian won't be tested on real work machines and won't be as stable as it should be. You haven't addressed this point. Just like development copies of other public-beta OSes, Debian does get tested on real work machines, in unstable, frozen, and stable forms. But what it boils down to with me is prioritization: for *this* particular machine which I administer, which is more important -- helping the Debian folks test out the new distro, or keeping my backside out of the fire and my blood pressure in the three-digit range? When I lean toward the latter (which is most of the time), I don't stray from stable, and help out elsewhere. Oh, and my 20 gig DDS is in the shop. Sorry, telling people back up often is getting less realistic. The fact is, my important stuff is backed up in five places, but reinstalling is still a pita. At the time I did my backup, I had no working tape drive -- for me, at least, a lack of tape backup drives or media doesn't cut it. I mounted a Windows partition and backed up into a compressed tar file there. And there was no actual reinstall pita for me; again, I booted off a rescue floppy, untarred my backup, and that was it. As freqently as I have Windows crashes, I've gotten used to backing stuff off to other drives in the event of massive failures. Most people don't have that extra machine sitting around. Possibly, but I wouldn't assume that most people who are: (a) testing potato, and (b) have really important data have only one machine. -- Mike Renfro / Instructor, Basic Engineering Program 931 372-3601 / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 packages, and would back up what is needed to restore a system to normal from a clean install? To have just the shadow, passwd, and the confs for all the different packages, we could back up just these files. Then, reinstall from scratch, ignore configurations, because the restore of the config files would handle it all. Some would say that this should be handled manually, but it would make it nice, and it's something that no other distribution has considered doing. Having to manually back up key files is a major nuisance. Dave Bristel [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Seth M. Landsman wrote: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 15:22:59 -0500 From: Seth M. Landsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED], Edward Betts [EMAIL PROTECTED], debian-devel@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 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 your only PC to do real work on is running an ever-changing, developer-suited version of Debian, then you're really asking for some mission-critical failures. Not having at least a fairly recent backup before upgrading critical libraries is ridiculous, and it doesn't take a developer to know that (I offer myself as evidence on that point). Okay, let's not turn this into a flame war. My point is that breakages in unstable are *REALLY BAD THINGS*. Yes, they happen, but the attitude that this one comes with is one of it's your problem for trying unstable, not ours. If you manage to alienate the community of people who do real work, debian won't be tested on real work machines and won't be as stable as it should be. You haven't addressed this point. Oh, and my 20 gig DDS is in the shop. Sorry, telling people back up often is getting less realistic. The fact is, my important stuff is backed up in five places, but reinstalling is still a pita. Hell, I got bit by a similar problem when Slink had been frozen for several weeks (that __register_frame_info business). I had a backup; one rescue floppy and a massive 'tar -zxvpf' later, I was back in business. Yes, potato needs to undergo real-world testing. So if you have an extra machine, run your real work in parallel on potato and slink. But to place so much trust in others' testing that you'll put your vital stuff solely on potato is probably overoptimistic and misguided. Most people don't have that extra machine sitting around. -Seth -- It is by will alone I set my mind in motion -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Beta-testing and the glibc 2.1 (Was: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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, there must be some area where uploads like glibc2.1 can go -- those are necessary upgrades and they need to be uploaded somewhere. unstable is what we have for that. You have to expect that things will break in there -- if they haven't in the past, then that's by luck rather than design. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5 CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 have ldd. The solution is to downgrade the ldso package to the one in slink, or actually take the plunge to glibc 2.1. Hopefully a new version of ldso (Joel Klecker: PLEASE! :) will be uploaded that depends on glibc 2.1, that way apt will hold back ldso automagically. -- Robert Woodcock - [EMAIL PROTECTED] I never knew manipulating the masses was so easy. -jt
Re: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 test it but not if my machine is going to be die) craig -- craig sanders
Re: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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 willing to test it but not if my machine is going to be die) Make sure your mirror is up to date. libtricks will break--use fakeroot 0.17.2 or something most things like sshd and the like will need restarting apt 0.1.10 will break--use apt 0.1.10.1 libgc4 breaks prcs breaks jdk breaks I'm told uhh, there was a list on #debian in the topic, someone removed it. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - lux if macOS is for the computer illiterate, then windoze is for the computer masochists pgp7N5PPazaL0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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? will i still be left with a (mostly) usable system? My machine survived long enough for me to force-downgrade to the previous version of ldso, and put it on hold. -- G. Branden Robinson | There is no gravity in space. Debian GNU/Linux | Then how could astronauts walk around [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on the Moon? cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | Because they were wearing heavy boots. pgp4PUNv2Pg0U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Missing ldd? Have libc6 on hold? Get ldso from slink...
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? will i still be left with a (mostly) usable system? (i'm willing to test it but not if my machine is going to be die) craig -- craig sanders Well, I just 'took the plunge' and everything SEEMS to be working... Mike with fingers crossed -- Mike Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 28460680
