Re: libc-bin on one good, on the other report of a bug........

[David Wright]

On Fri 12 Nov 2021 at 10:27:53 (+1100), Charlie wrote:
> 
>   On one of my laptops latest upgrade, Dell Inspiron  "libc-bin"
>   is fine: Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.31-13+deb11u2) ...
> 
> On the other a HP 245 06 laptop it is reported as having a bug:
> 
>   #998008
> Post install makes a working NIS system not to work anymore at every
> point release.
> 
> So I place it in irons, on hold, and continue with the upgrade.
> 
> I am a peasanto, a man of the land with two laptops, double trouble,
> and trying to understand a NIS system? Running the questions and asking
> for examples through Google. Without any joy of understanding.
> 
> Can't get if I will be in trouble if the bug is ignored and this
> happens: "Post install makes a working NIS system not to work anymore at
> every point release."
> 
> So ask the wisdom on this list.
> 
> Any simple explanations out there, if someone is inclined, for  hoople
> head like myself.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, there's a simple workaround
if this (or isn't) affecting you, and that is to make a trivial
modification to your /etc/nsswitch.conf file. This will force any
upgrade to either refuse to modify the file, or ask to modify it
(which you can refuse). For example, you could add the line:

  # keep this file unchanged

to the file (as root). This will change its MD5, preventing it from
ever matching a previous default's value.

Cheers,
David.

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 16 iun 20, 11:47:24, Dan Ritter wrote:
> 
> Since postfix is already hosed:
> 
> sudo rm -rf /etc/postfix
> sudo apt install --reinstall postfix

For most packages (didn't check postfix) this might not do what one 
expects.

Files marked as dpkg conffiles will not be restored, as dpkg considers 
the removal to be an admin choice to be preserved.

The file /var/lib/dpkg/info/.conffiles will show which 
configuration files are marked as conffiles for a package.

According to the manpage 'dpkg --force-confmiss' should restore missing 
conffiles (without prompting).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Gary Aitken]

On 6/16/20 9:47 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:

Gary Aitken wrote:

...

Since postfix is already hosed:

sudo rm -rf /etc/postfix
sudo apt install --reinstall postfix


Thanks, will save that for next time.

Gary

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Dan Ritter]

Gary Aitken wrote: 
> On 6/16/20 6:03 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Gary Aitken wrote:
> > > On 6/15/20 3:37 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > Gary Aitken wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > > When originally built, the system had a screwed-up postfix 
> > > > > installation;
> > > > > in attempting to solve this problem, I wanted to uninstall postfix and
> > > > > reinstall it.  However, I don't think I should do that because the 
> > > > > postfix
> > > > > installation has an issue:
> > > > > 
> > > > > $ aptitude why postfix
> > > > > i   automysqlbackup Depends  bsd-mailx | mailx
> > > > > i A bsd-mailx   Depends  default-mta | mail-transport-agent
> > > > > i A postfix Provides mail-transport-agent
> > > > > 
> > > > > Can anyone give me some clues on how to resolve this?
> > > > 
> > > > > The main goal is to uninstall postfix and re-install it, without 
> > > > > uninstalling
> > > > > the automysqlbackup as this is a production system and the autobackup 
> > > > > is
> > > > > working properly.  I believe the postfix dependency is for cases 
> > > > > where the
> > > > > auto-backup fails; it's also preventing mail from being delivered for 
> > > > > failing
> > > > > cron jobs.
> > > > 
> > > > sudo apt install --reinstall postfix
> > > > 
> > > > sudo dpkg-reconfigure postfix
> > > > 
> > > > might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
> > > > to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.
> > > 
> > > I've already tried reconfiguring and reinstalling postfix, to no avail.
> > 
> > Yes, but did apt install --reinstall help?
> 
> The reason I think I need to do a purge is the conf files are what is screwed
> up (I think), and a reinstall doesn't mess with them:
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't see a way to do the equivalent of purge --reinstall
> and ignore the dependencies so automysqlbackup is left intact:
> 
> $ apt --simulate purge --reinstall postfix


Since postfix is already hosed:

sudo rm -rf /etc/postfix
sudo apt install --reinstall postfix

-dsr-

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Gary Aitken]

On 6/16/20 6:03 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:

Gary Aitken wrote:

On 6/15/20 3:37 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:

Gary Aitken wrote:

...

When originally built, the system had a screwed-up postfix installation;
in attempting to solve this problem, I wanted to uninstall postfix and
reinstall it.  However, I don't think I should do that because the postfix
installation has an issue:

$ aptitude why postfix
i   automysqlbackup Depends  bsd-mailx | mailx
i A bsd-mailx   Depends  default-mta | mail-transport-agent
i A postfix Provides mail-transport-agent

Can anyone give me some clues on how to resolve this?



The main goal is to uninstall postfix and re-install it, without uninstalling
the automysqlbackup as this is a production system and the autobackup is
working properly.  I believe the postfix dependency is for cases where the
auto-backup fails; it's also preventing mail from being delivered for failing
cron jobs.


sudo apt install --reinstall postfix

sudo dpkg-reconfigure postfix

might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.


I've already tried reconfiguring and reinstalling postfix, to no avail.


Yes, but did apt install --reinstall help?


The reason I think I need to do a purge is the conf files are what is screwed
up (I think), and a reinstall doesn't mess with them:

# apt install --reinstall postfix
...
Setting up postfix (3.1.0-3ubuntu0.3) ...

Postfix configuration was untouched.  If you need to make changes, edit
/etc/postfix/main.cf (and others) as needed.  To view Postfix configuration
values, see postconf(1).

After modifying main.cf, be sure to run '/etc/init.d/postfix reload'.

Running newaliases
Job for postfix.service failed because the control process exited with error code. See 
"systemctl status postfix.service" and "journalctl -xe" for details.
invoke-rc.d: initscript postfix, action "restart" failed.
● postfix.service - LSB: Postfix Mail Transport Agent
   Loaded: loaded (/etc/init.d/postfix; bad; vendor preset: enabled)
  Drop-In: /run/systemd/generator/postfix.service.d
   └─50-postfix-$mail-transport-agent.conf
   Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Tue 2020-06-16 14:50:45 UTC; 11ms 
ago
 Docs: man:systemd-sysv-generator(8)
  Process: 18523 ExecStart=/etc/init.d/postfix start (code=exited, 
status=1/FAILURE)

Jun 16 14:50:43 xblgx-ops systemd[1]: Stopped LSB: Postfix Mail Transport Agent.
Jun 16 14:50:43 xblgx-ops systemd[1]: Starting LSB: Postfix Mail Transport 
Agent...
Jun 16 14:50:43 xblgx-ops postfix[18523]:  * Starting Postfix Mail Transport 
Agent postfix
Jun 16 14:50:44 xblgx-ops postfix[18615]: fatal: bad string length 0 < 1: 
mailq_path =
Jun 16 14:50:45 xblgx-ops postfix[18523]:...fail!
Jun 16 14:50:45 xblgx-ops systemd[1]: postfix.service: Control process exited, 
code=exited status=1
Jun 16 14:50:45 xblgx-ops systemd[1]: Failed to start LSB: Postfix Mail 
Transport Agent.
Jun 16 14:50:45 xblgx-ops systemd[1]: postfix.service: Unit entered failed 
state.
Jun 16 14:50:45 xblgx-ops systemd[1]: postfix.service: Failed with result 
'exit-code'.
dpkg: error processing package postfix (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to do the equivalent of purge --reinstall
and ignore the dependencies so automysqlbackup is left intact:

$ apt --simulate purge --reinstall postfix
...
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  automysqlbackup* bsd-mailx* postfix*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 3 to remove and 140 not upgraded.
1 not fully installed or removed.
Purg automysqlbackup [2.6+debian.4-1]
Purg bsd-mailx [8.1.2-0.20160123cvs-2]
Purg postfix [3.1.0-3ubuntu0.3]

$  apt --simulate --ignore-depends bsd-mailx purge --reinstall postfix
E: Command line option --ignore-depends is not understood in combination with 
the other options

Gary

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Dan Ritter]

Gary Aitken wrote: 
> On 6/15/20 3:37 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Gary Aitken wrote:
> ...
> > > When originally built, the system had a screwed-up postfix installation;
> > > in attempting to solve this problem, I wanted to uninstall postfix and
> > > reinstall it.  However, I don't think I should do that because the postfix
> > > installation has an issue:
> > > 
> > > $ aptitude why postfix
> > > i   automysqlbackup Depends  bsd-mailx | mailx
> > > i A bsd-mailx   Depends  default-mta | mail-transport-agent
> > > i A postfix Provides mail-transport-agent
> > > 
> > > Can anyone give me some clues on how to resolve this?
> > 
> > > The main goal is to uninstall postfix and re-install it, without 
> > > uninstalling
> > > the automysqlbackup as this is a production system and the autobackup is
> > > working properly.  I believe the postfix dependency is for cases where the
> > > auto-backup fails; it's also preventing mail from being delivered for 
> > > failing
> > > cron jobs.
> > 
> > sudo apt install --reinstall postfix
> > 
> > sudo dpkg-reconfigure postfix
> > 
> > might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
> > to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.
> 
> I've already tried reconfiguring and reinstalling postfix, to no avail.

Yes, but did apt install --reinstall help?

-dsr-

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Kenneth Parker]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:43 PM Gary Aitken  wrote:

> On 6/15/20 3:43 PM, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 4:40 PM Gary Aitken  > > wrote:
> ...
> > $ dpkg --simulate --remove postfix dpkg: could not open log
> > '/var/log/dpkg.log': Permission denied
> ...
> > Lots of the apt and dpkg functions require Root or Sudo. Notice the
> > "Permission denied" phases mixed in with the responses.
>
> Notice the --simulate; at this point I'm not trying to actually perform
> the action.  --simulate works whether running as root or not.  In any
> case, I've previously tried running --simulate using sudo or when logged
> in as root and the result is the same ... the libc-bin self-reference:
>
> > dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers:
> >   chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible:
> >libc-bin -> libc-bin
> >   packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolvable:
> >libc-bin: ldconfig
> > dpkg: error processing package libc-bin (--purge):
> >   triggers looping, abandoned
>

The "/var/log" Directories are restricted to Root, and Log Handling Users
only.  That's the "permission denied" in this case.

There's controversy over if you should use Root, or escalate Permissions
with sudo, both in Debian and Ubuntu.  I generally override all of that
(personal choice) with "sudo passwd root" which, when followed correctly
should give you a Root User with its Password.  Then, I set aside a Virtual
Terminal (if Text) or an XTerm, signed on as Root, which I will only use
when needed, including routine apt update / apt upgrade activities and log
brousing.  That's on one Virtual Terminal (or Virtual Desktop), and ignored
unless needed.  And then I do my normal work as my Normal User.

Kenneth Parker

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Gary Aitken]

On 6/15/20 3:37 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:

Gary Aitken wrote:

...

When originally built, the system had a screwed-up postfix installation;
in attempting to solve this problem, I wanted to uninstall postfix and
reinstall it.  However, I don't think I should do that because the postfix
installation has an issue:

$ aptitude why postfix
i   automysqlbackup Depends  bsd-mailx | mailx
i A bsd-mailx   Depends  default-mta | mail-transport-agent
i A postfix Provides mail-transport-agent

Can anyone give me some clues on how to resolve this?



The main goal is to uninstall postfix and re-install it, without uninstalling
the automysqlbackup as this is a production system and the autobackup is
working properly.  I believe the postfix dependency is for cases where the
auto-backup fails; it's also preventing mail from being delivered for failing
cron jobs.


sudo apt install --reinstall postfix

sudo dpkg-reconfigure postfix

might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.


I've already tried reconfiguring and reinstalling postfix, to no avail.


Ubuntu, however, is now relatively distantly derived from
Debian; there should be an ubuntu-users list...


Thanks, I will look there.  I guessed (apparently wrongly) that the package
management core was the same.

Gary

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Gary Aitken]

On 6/15/20 3:43 PM, Kenneth Parker wrote:



On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 4:40 PM Gary Aitken mailto:deb...@dreamchaser.org>> wrote:

...

$ dpkg --simulate --remove postfix dpkg: could not open log
'/var/log/dpkg.log': Permission denied

...

Lots of the apt and dpkg functions require Root or Sudo. Notice the
"Permission denied" phases mixed in with the responses.


Notice the --simulate; at this point I'm not trying to actually perform
the action.  --simulate works whether running as root or not.  In any
case, I've previously tried running --simulate using sudo or when logged
in as root and the result is the same ... the libc-bin self-reference:


dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers:
  chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible:
   libc-bin -> libc-bin
  packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolvable:
   libc-bin: ldconfig
dpkg: error processing package libc-bin (--purge):
  triggers looping, abandoned


Gary

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Kenneth Parker]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 4:40 PM Gary Aitken  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm attempting to manage a google-compute system running debian/ubuntu;
> I normally run a freebsd system so I'm out of my element here and web
> searches haven't helped:
>
> 81~16.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Mon May 11 14:56:45 UTC 2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64
> GNU/Linux
>
> When originally built, the system had a screwed-up postfix installation;
> in attempting to solve this problem, I wanted to uninstall postfix and
> reinstall it.  However, I don't think I should do that because the postfix
> installation has an issue:
>
> $ aptitude why postfix
> i   automysqlbackup Depends  bsd-mailx | mailx
> i A bsd-mailx   Depends  default-mta | mail-transport-agent
> i A postfix Provides mail-transport-agent
>
> $ dpkg --simulate --remove postfix
> dpkg: could not open log '/var/log/dpkg.log': Permission denied
> dpkg: dependency problems prevent removal of postfix:
>   bsd-mailx depends on default-mta | mail-transport-agent; however:
>Package default-mta is not installed.
>Package postfix which provides default-mta is to be removed.
>Package mail-transport-agent is not installed.
>Package postfix which provides mail-transport-agent is to be removed.
>   bsd-mailx depends on default-mta | mail-transport-agent; however:
>Package default-mta is not installed.
>Package postfix which provides default-mta is to be removed.
>Package mail-transport-agent is not installed.
>Package postfix which provides mail-transport-agent is to be removed.
>
> dpkg: error processing package postfix (--remove):
>   dependency problems - not removing
> Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.23-0ubuntu10) ...
> dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers:
>   chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible:
>libc-bin -> libc-bin
>   packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolvable:
>libc-bin: ldconfig
> dpkg: error processing package libc-bin (--remove):
>   triggers looping, abandoned
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>   postfix
>   libc-bin
>
> If I consider removing libc-bin so I can re-install it and correct the
> dependency loop, I am unable to do so:
>
> $ dpkg --simulate --remove libc-bin
> dpkg: could not open log '/var/log/dpkg.log': Permission denied
> dpkg: error processing package libc-bin (--remove):
>   this is an essential package; it should not be removed
> Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.23-0ubuntu10) ...
> dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers:
>   chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible:
>libc-bin -> libc-bin
>   packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolvable:
>libc-bin: ldconfig
> dpkg: error processing package libc-bin (--remove):
>   triggers looping, abandoned
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>   libc-bin
>   libc-bin
>
> I then considered forcing removal of postfix by ignoring dependencies, but
> that has the same libc-bin loop issue:
>
> $ dpkg --simulate --ignore-depends bsd-mailx --purge postfix
> dpkg: could not open log '/var/log/dpkg.log': Permission denied
> (Reading database ... 171222 files and directories currently installed.)
> Would remove or purge postfix (3.1.0-3ubuntu0.3) ...
> Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.23-0ubuntu10) ...
> dpkg: cycle found while processing triggers:
>   chain of packages whose triggers are or may be responsible:
>libc-bin -> libc-bin
>   packages' pending triggers which are or may be unresolvable:
>libc-bin: ldconfig
> dpkg: error processing package libc-bin (--purge):
>   triggers looping, abandoned
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>   libc-bin
>
> Can anyone give me some clues on how to resolve this?
> The main goal is to uninstall postfix and re-install it, without
> uninstalling
> the automysqlbackup as this is a production system and the autobackup is
> working properly.  I believe the postfix dependency is for cases where the
> auto-backup fails; it's also preventing mail from being delivered for
> failing
> cron jobs.
> Sorry for the naivete of this; I'm new to linux.
>

Lots of the apt and dpkg functions require Root or Sudo. Notice the
"Permission denied" phases mixed in with the responses.

Thanks,
>
> Gary
>

Good luck,

Kenneth Parker

>

Re: libc-bin "cycle found while processing triggers"

[Dan Ritter]

Gary Aitken wrote: 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm attempting to manage a google-compute system running debian/ubuntu;
> I normally run a freebsd system so I'm out of my element here and web
> searches haven't helped:
> 
> When originally built, the system had a screwed-up postfix installation;
> in attempting to solve this problem, I wanted to uninstall postfix and
> reinstall it.  However, I don't think I should do that because the postfix
> installation has an issue:
> 
> $ aptitude why postfix
> i   automysqlbackup Depends  bsd-mailx | mailx
> i A bsd-mailx   Depends  default-mta | mail-transport-agent
> i A postfix Provides mail-transport-agent
> 
> Can anyone give me some clues on how to resolve this?

> The main goal is to uninstall postfix and re-install it, without uninstalling
> the automysqlbackup as this is a production system and the autobackup is
> working properly.  I believe the postfix dependency is for cases where the
> auto-backup fails; it's also preventing mail from being delivered for failing
> cron jobs.

sudo apt install --reinstall postfix

sudo dpkg-reconfigure postfix

might do what you want. In general, Debian derivatives will try
to prevent you from uninstalling critical machinery, like libc.

Ubuntu, however, is now relatively distantly derived from
Debian; there should be an ubuntu-users list...

-dsr-

Re: Libc 6

[María Rosa ☸]

2014-12-11 20:15 GMT-03:00 María Rosa ☸ abdem...@gmail.com:

 Hola lista: Vuelvo de nuevo a molestar porque Debian/Android me está dando
 dolor de cabeza.
 Tengo el bin para instalar el NDK tools para tener la arm correcta para mi
 celular. Pero no la puedo instalar, me faltan librerías, que creo son
 experimentales:
 Cuando quiero ejecutar el dicho programa, la terminal muestra que me
 faltan librerías:
 ./android-ndk-r10d-linux-x86_64.bin
 ./android-ndk-r10d-linux-x86_64.bin: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6:
 version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by
 ./android-ndk-r10d-linux-x86_64.bin)
 El tema es que buscando me doy con que estás librerías son inestables, si
 las instalo puedo llevarme puesto el SO?
 Tengo los repositores listos para agregarlos pero me da desconfianza.
 ¿Que hago?
 Saludos.

Me contesto sola, porque ya lo solucioné creando un directorio en mi
usuario/fakeroot y extrayendo las librerías ahí, se extrajo NDK tools sin
ningun problema y hasta ahora salvé mi SO.
Seguí a esta persona que generosamente compartió su experiencia:
(Hago copy/paste para no pegar el enlace)

In my situation, the error appears when I try to run an application
(compiled on Ubuntu 12.04 LTS) using GLIBC_2.14 on Debian Wheezy (which
installs glibc 2.13 by default).

I use a tricky way to run it, and get correct result:

Download libc6 and libc6-dev from Ubuntu 12.04 LTS

Run dpkg command to install them into a directory (/home/user/fakeroot/ for
example):

$ dpkg -x libc6-dev_2.15-0ubuntu10.6_amd64.deb /home/user/fakeroot/
$ dpkg -x libc6_2.15-0ubuntu10.6_amd64.deb /home/user/fakeroot/

Run your command with specified LD_LIBRARY_PATH:

$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/home/user/fakeroot/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ YOUR_COMMAND

My application only uses memcpy() from GLIBC_2.14, and it works.

I don't know whether it will work successfully for other applications. Wish
it helpful.

Perdón, pero está en inglés. :(
Por si a algún usuario de Wheezy 7.7 amd64 le surge la necesidad de tener
instaladas estas librerías, puede que le funcione.
Leí que la actualización de Spotify y creo que Skype las requieren.
Saludos.
PD:  La fuente:
superuser.com/questions/537683/how-to-fix-lib-x86-64-linux-gnu-libc-so-6-version-glibc-2-14-not-found

Re: libc-bin, libc-bin-amd64 conflict

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Vi, 25 apr 14, 17:29:13, Gary Roach wrote:
 When running Aptitude,  a red bar in the bottom half of the screen 
 says
 Unable to resolve dependencies. If I hit g after I update package list
 and  Mark Upgradable, the top of the screen lists:
 iB  libc-bin
 pBA   libc-bin:amd64
 The red box in the center of the screen says: No solution to these
 descrepency problems exists!
 At this point Aptitude is essentially frozen.
 
 Attempts to run dpkg produce:
 root# dpkg -i libc-bin
 dpkg: error processing libc-bin (--install): cannot access archive: No
 such file or directory
 Errors were encountered while processing: libc-bin

This can't work, because 'dpkg -i' needs files (not package names). 
Please provide the output of:

dpkg --print-architecture
dpkg --print-foreign-architectures
apt-cache policy
apt-cache policy libc-bin
aptitude --simulate safe-upgrade
aptitude --simulate full-upgrade

I'm assuming your package lists are updated, otherwise please run 
'aptitude update' (or press 'u' in interactive mode) first.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: libc-bin, libc-bin-amd64 conflict (Solved)

[Gary Roach]

On 04/26/2014 02:57 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Vi, 25 apr 14, 17:29:13, Gary Roach wrote:

When running Aptitude,  a red bar in the bottom half of the screen
says
Unable to resolve dependencies. If I hit g after I update package list
and  Mark Upgradable, the top of the screen lists:
 iB  libc-bin
 pBA   libc-bin:amd64
The red box in the center of the screen says: No solution to these
descrepency problems exists!
At this point Aptitude is essentially frozen.

Attempts to run dpkg produce:
 root# dpkg -i libc-bin
 dpkg: error processing libc-bin (--install): cannot access archive: No
such file or directory
 Errors were encountered while processing: libc-bin

This can't work, because 'dpkg -i' needs files (not package names).
Please provide the output of:

dpkg --print-architecture
dpkg --print-foreign-architectures
apt-cache policy
apt-cache policy libc-bin
aptitude --simulate safe-upgrade
aptitude --simulate full-upgrade

I'm assuming your package lists are updated, otherwise please run
'aptitude update' (or press 'u' in interactive mode) first.

Kind regards,
Andrei
I ran your suggestions. When aptitude --simulate worked OK, I decided to 
run a dpkg upgrade and it worked. I found that something was wrong with 
Aptitude. I purged Aptitude using apt-get and reinstalled the package. 
Everything now works fine. Thanks for your help.


Gary R


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/535c2b69.8040...@verizon.net

Re: libc-bin, libc-bin-amd64 conflict

[Gary Roach]

On 04/23/2014 03:43 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Mi, 23 apr 14, 11:58:49, Gary Roach wrote:

Hi all,

I am running an Intel i5-750, 4 core processor with Debian 3.2.54-2 x86-64
OS and Debian Squeeze. Recent attempts to update the system, with Aptitude
(and dpkg), have failed because of a conflict between libc-bin and
libc-bin-amd64. I have not been able to resolve the conflict. My dpkg update
system is essentially frozen (everything hangs up at the conflict
notification).

Anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve this conflict. Deleting one of
the files is not an option. The software refuses to allow this.

Please provide a copy-paste of the commands you run, otherwise we can
only guess what happened.

Kind regards,
Andrei
When running Aptitude,  a red bar in the bottom half of the screen says 
Unable to resolve dependencies. If I hit g after I update package 
list and  Mark Upgradable, the top of the screen lists:

iB  libc-bin
pBA   libc-bin:amd64
The red box in the center of the screen says: No solution to these 
descrepency problems exists!

At this point Aptitude is essentially frozen.

Attempts to run dpkg produce:
root# dpkg -i libc-bin
dpkg: error processing libc-bin (--install): cannot access archive: 
No such file or directory

Errors were encountered while processing: libc-bin
The Debian web site doesn't seem to list a package libc-bin:amd64

PS I'm using Wheezy not Squeeze.

Gary R


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/535afdd9.4040...@verizon.net

Re: libc-bin, libc-bin-amd64 conflict

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Mi, 23 apr 14, 11:58:49, Gary Roach wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I am running an Intel i5-750, 4 core processor with Debian 3.2.54-2 x86-64
 OS and Debian Squeeze. Recent attempts to update the system, with Aptitude
 (and dpkg), have failed because of a conflict between libc-bin and
 libc-bin-amd64. I have not been able to resolve the conflict. My dpkg update
 system is essentially frozen (everything hangs up at the conflict
 notification).
 
 Anyone have any ideas as to how to resolve this conflict. Deleting one of
 the files is not an option. The software refuses to allow this.

Please provide a copy-paste of the commands you run, otherwise we can 
only guess what happened.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: libc relocation error

[Lev Lvovsky]

If anyone is going through this problem, hopefully my resolution  
might help them - it looks like in the upgrade of libc-dev, something  
got hosed.  The interim solution to the problem while I fixed the  
install was to set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/lib, as it seemed that the  
problem was arising from the symbols in the files in /lib/tls.


After the full install, things started working, and I unset the  
environment variable.


-lev

On Aug 17, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Lev Lvovsky wrote:

after further digging, I've found this thread on the debian glibc  
list:


http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2005/03/msg00145.html

I'll be looking into how I can fix the problem - their suggested  
fix does not work.


-lev




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc relocation error

[Lev Lvovsky]

replying to my initial post -

I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm  
assuming that if this was widespread, I would've heard a yeah, it's  
being worked on sort of reply.


Given that - can anyone recommend even a place to start from as far  
as this problem goes?  It seems that the linking to glibc has gone  
awry either on my side or (less likely), on the etch side, is there a  
glibc package I can use to fix the problem?


thanks,
-lev
On Aug 17, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Lev Lvovsky wrote:

Hello, it looks like after running apt-get upgrade on my box, my  
glibc environment has been broken:


Updated the following:
Get:1 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main libc6-dev  
2.3.6.ds1-13etch2 [2717kB]
Get:2 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main libc6 2.3.6.ds1-13etch2  
[4699kB]
Get:3 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main lsb-base 3.1-23.2etch1  
[16.6kB]
Get:4 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main x11-common 1:7.1.0-19  
[338kB]
Get:5 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main debian-archive-keyring  
2007.07.31~etch1 [9318B]

Get:6 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main nano 2.0.2-1etch1 [547kB]
Get:7 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main locales  
2.3.6.ds1-13etch2 [3967kB]
Get:8 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main nfs-common 1:1.0.10-6 
+etch.1 [128kB]
Get:9 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2-utils 2.2.3-4 
+etch1 [341kB]
Get:10 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2-mpm-prefork  
2.2.3-4+etch1 [418kB]
Get:11 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2.2-common  
2.2.3-4+etch1 [962kB]
Get:12 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main tetex-base 3.0.dfsg. 
3-5etch1 [22.7MB]
Get:13 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main xlibs-data 1:7.1.0-19  
[18.5kB]


dpkg subsequently segfaulted, and I now get the following error  
when running commands like dpkg, or even 'ls':


ls: relocation error: /lib/libpthread.so.0: symbol  
__libc_stack_end, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld- 
linux.so.2 with link time reference


I'm running kenel 2.6.18, on etch.

Any help would be appreciated.

thank you,
-lev


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a  
subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc relocation error

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 08/17/07 16:16, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
 replying to my initial post -
 
 I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm
 assuming that if this was widespread, I would've heard a yeah, it's
 being worked on sort of reply.
 
 Given that - can anyone recommend even a place to start from as far as
 this problem goes?  It seems that the linking to glibc has gone awry
 either on my side or (less likely), on the etch side, is there a glibc
 package I can use to fix the problem?

Are you running a mixed system?

 thanks,
 -lev
 On Aug 17, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
 
 Hello, it looks like after running apt-get upgrade on my box, my glibc
 environment has been broken:

 Updated the following:
 Get:1 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main libc6-dev
 2.3.6.ds1-13etch2 [2717kB]
 Get:2 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main libc6 2.3.6.ds1-13etch2
 [4699kB]
 Get:3 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main lsb-base 3.1-23.2etch1
 [16.6kB]
 Get:4 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main x11-common 1:7.1.0-19 [338kB]
 Get:5 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main debian-archive-keyring
 2007.07.31~etch1 [9318B]
 Get:6 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main nano 2.0.2-1etch1 [547kB]
 Get:7 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main locales 2.3.6.ds1-13etch2
 [3967kB]
 Get:8 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main nfs-common
 1:1.0.10-6+etch.1 [128kB]
 Get:9 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2-utils
 2.2.3-4+etch1 [341kB]
 Get:10 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2-mpm-prefork
 2.2.3-4+etch1 [418kB]
 Get:11 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2.2-common
 2.2.3-4+etch1 [962kB]
 Get:12 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main tetex-base
 3.0.dfsg.3-5etch1 [22.7MB]
 Get:13 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main xlibs-data 1:7.1.0-19
 [18.5kB]

 dpkg subsequently segfaulted, and I now get the following error when
 running commands like dpkg, or even 'ls':

 ls: relocation error: /lib/libpthread.so.0: symbol __libc_stack_end,
 version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time
 reference

 I'm running kenel 2.6.18, on etch.

 Any help would be appreciated.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGxhFzS9HxQb37XmcRAiWSAKC5WsJJIpGV2ZtUoJepcSen7W+wuwCg19Bw
lxJ7WTaN1RZeuEK/qclbpEc=
=9Zgo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc relocation error

[Lev Lvovsky]

replying to myself -

I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm  
assuming that if this was widespread, I would've heard a yeah, it's  
being worked on sort of reply.


Given that - can anyone recommend even a place to start from as far  
as this problem goes?  It seems that the linking to glibc has gone  
awry either on my side or (less likely), on the etch side, is there a  
glibc package I can use to fix the problem?


thanks,
-lev

On Aug 17, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Lev Lvovsky wrote:

Hello, it looks like after running apt-get upgrade on my box, my  
glibc environment has been broken:


Updated the following:
Get:1 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main libc6-dev  
2.3.6.ds1-13etch2 [2717kB]
Get:2 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main libc6 2.3.6.ds1-13etch2  
[4699kB]
Get:3 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main lsb-base 3.1-23.2etch1  
[16.6kB]
Get:4 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main x11-common 1:7.1.0-19  
[338kB]
Get:5 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main debian-archive-keyring  
2007.07.31~etch1 [9318B]

Get:6 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main nano 2.0.2-1etch1 [547kB]
Get:7 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main locales  
2.3.6.ds1-13etch2 [3967kB]
Get:8 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main nfs-common 1:1.0.10-6 
+etch.1 [128kB]
Get:9 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2-utils 2.2.3-4 
+etch1 [341kB]
Get:10 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2-mpm-prefork  
2.2.3-4+etch1 [418kB]
Get:11 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main apache2.2-common  
2.2.3-4+etch1 [962kB]
Get:12 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main tetex-base 3.0.dfsg. 
3-5etch1 [22.7MB]
Get:13 http://http.us.debian.org stable/main xlibs-data 1:7.1.0-19  
[18.5kB]


dpkg subsequently segfaulted, and I now get the following error  
when running commands like dpkg, or even 'ls':


ls: relocation error: /lib/libpthread.so.0: symbol  
__libc_stack_end, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld- 
linux.so.2 with link time reference


I'm running kenel 2.6.18, on etch.

Any help would be appreciated.

thank you,
-lev


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a  
subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc relocation error

[Lev Lvovsky]

[sorry for the multiple replies]

On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 08/17/07 16:16, Lev Lvovsky wrote:

replying to my initial post -

I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm
assuming that if this was widespread, I would've heard a yeah, it's
being worked on sort of reply.

Given that - can anyone recommend even a place to start from as  
far as

this problem goes?  It seems that the linking to glibc has gone awry
either on my side or (less likely), on the etch side, is there a  
glibc

package I can use to fix the problem?


Are you running a mixed system?


I didn't think that I was, however I upgraded from sarge to etch a  
while back, so perhaps that's how it's left my system?  I'd noticed  
this problem earlier when I booted into an older kernel.  I  
mistakenly thought nothing of it given the older kernel version  
(2.4.x), but on second thought, that should have nothing to do with it.


If I indeed am running a mixed system, how can I switch entirely to  
the etch release?


thanks!
-lev


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc relocation error

[Ron Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 08/17/07 16:27, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
 [sorry for the multiple replies]
 
 On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
 
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 On 08/17/07 16:16, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
 replying to my initial post -

 I just subbed for the purposes of finding out about this issue - I'm
 assuming that if this was widespread, I would've heard a yeah, it's
 being worked on sort of reply.

 Given that - can anyone recommend even a place to start from as far as
 this problem goes?  It seems that the linking to glibc has gone awry
 either on my side or (less likely), on the etch side, is there a glibc
 package I can use to fix the problem?

 Are you running a mixed system?
 
 I didn't think that I was, however I upgraded from sarge to etch a while
 back, so perhaps that's how it's left my system?  I'd noticed this
 problem earlier when I booted into an older kernel.  I mistakenly
 thought nothing of it given the older kernel version (2.4.x), but on
 second thought, that should have nothing to do with it.
 
 If I indeed am running a mixed system, how can I switch entirely to the
 etch release?

Eliminate all Sarge references from sources.list.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGxhYvS9HxQb37XmcRAuukAKCQrD1T2g3Omg3DMZAlR8aXMwA6WgCgpw8o
fOWNx8R+wlVXNHNmxSr3RaY=
=B3Do
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc relocation error

[Lev Lvovsky]

Ron,

On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
If I indeed am running a mixed system, how can I switch entirely  
to the

etch release?


Eliminate all Sarge references from sources.list.


my sources.list is as follows:
deb http://security.debian.org etch/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free

given that dpkg is broken, is there any other way to check the list  
of debs that the system has installed for any sarge packages?


thanks,
-lev


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc relocation error

[Lev Lvovsky]

after further digging, I've found this thread on the debian glibc list:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2005/03/msg00145.html

I'll be looking into how I can fix the problem - their suggested fix  
does not work.


-lev

On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Lev Lvovsky wrote:


Ron,

On Aug 17, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
If I indeed am running a mixed system, how can I switch entirely  
to the

etch release?


Eliminate all Sarge references from sources.list.


my sources.list is as follows:
deb http://security.debian.org etch/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free

given that dpkg is broken, is there any other way to check the list  
of debs that the system has installed for any sarge packages?


thanks,
-lev


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] a  
subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Libc development package

[Gurvan Huiban]

On Wednesday 14 December 2005 22:05, Bastien GANDOUET wrote:
 Bonjour à tous,

 A l'instalation des drivers de ma carte graphique (Nvidia), le logiciel
 me dit qu'il manque la librairie Libc development package de ma
 distribution. J'ai eu beau faire pas mal d'apt-cache search, je n'ai
 rien trouv=E9 qui corresponde, quelqu'un connaitrai t'il le nom exact du
 package, ou la manip qu'il faut faire pour metre la librairie a jour,
 ou quoi que ce soit qui pourrai m'aider ?

libc6-dev ???

 Merci d'avance :]

-- 

Gurvan Huiban

 My mother used to make coffee this way...
   Hot...
Strong...
 And good.(from Once upon in the West)

mutt tweaks (was: Re: libc no longer executable in testing/unstable, was in stable (matlab))

[Derrick 'dman' Hudson]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:26:45PM -0400, Lee Bradshaw wrote:
| On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:47:13PM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote:

|  PS: Mail-Followup-To not honored as it appears to be munged.

Some people actually want a copy.  That is what the header is for --
indicating what your preference is at that time.  (for example, I
don't spend as much time reading the list's folder now as I used to so
I do want a copy of something I sent so I'll notice it; however
sometimes I don't)

| Thanks. I changed lists to subscribe in .muttrc. We'll see if that
| fixes the problem.

Use 'lists' to tell mutt you want a personal copy of replies and
'subscribe' if you don't.

Using 'subscribe' as a side-effect that some find annoying.  Instead
of showing your name in the 'From' column for messages you sent it
will show To: debian-user.  If you don't like that behvavior then
set this option :
set index_format=%3C %Z %{%b%d} %-15.15F (%4c) %s
#   ^^

The carets show how it differs from the default.  Read the manual to
see what the default is, what the differences mean and what other
options there are.

-D

-- 
Microsoft is to operating systems  security 
 what McDonald's is to gourmet cooking
 
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: libc no longer executable in testing/unstable, was in stable (matlab)

[Florian Ernst]

Hello!

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:25:35AM -0400, Lee Bradshaw wrote:
 On a stable system, libc is executable and returns version info:
 [...]
 But on testing (same package in unstable) libc is not executable.
 [...]
 Matlab is one of the applications that tries to execute the library to
 figure out what kind of system it is on. Making the libraries executable
 again doesn't help:
 [...]
 Can anyone explain what's going on?

I think it was some issue with NPTL once, but can't find any details
now. Does
$ /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /lib/libc.so.6
help? It does here...

Cheers,
Flo


PS: Mail-Followup-To not honored as it appears to be munged.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

[Harland Christofferson]

At Thursday, 18 March 2004, Harland Christofferson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
com wrote:

i tried to install package bind9 using apt-get install. the result is:

Reading Package Lists...
Building Dependency Tree...
You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
  bind9: Conflicts: bind but 1:8.3.3-2.0woody2 is to be installed
  libc6: Depends: libdb1-compat but it is not installable
  libc6-dev: Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.5-11.5) but 2.3.2.ds1-11 is to 
be installed
  locales: Depends: glibc-2.2.5-11.5

how can i clean up these conflicts?

-- 

i am prompted to use apt-get -f install 

what will this do?











-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

[Paul Johnson]

Harland Christofferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


 Reading Package Lists...
 Building Dependency Tree...
 You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
 Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
   bind9: Conflicts: bind but 1:8.3.3-2.0woody2 is to be installed

Uninstall bind first.

   libc6: Depends: libdb1-compat but it is not installable
   libc6-dev: Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.5-11.5) but 2.3.2.ds1-11 is to 
 be installed
   locales: Depends: glibc-2.2.5-11.5

Hold libc6 until libdb1-compat, glibc-2.2.5-11.5 and try it again.

 how can i clean up these conflicts?

Read the output, it's self-explainetory.  It's not like RPM.

-- 
 .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
  `-   Debian.  Because it *must* work.  debian.org   aboutdebian.com


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

[Harland Christofferson]

At Thursday, 18 March 2004, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Harland Christofferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Reading Package Lists...
 Building Dependency Tree...
 You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these:
 Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies:
   bind9: Conflicts: bind but 1:8.3.3-2.0woody2 is to be installed

Uninstall bind first.

   libc6: Depends: libdb1-compat but it is not installable
   libc6-dev: Depends: libc6 (= 2.2.5-11.5) but 2.3.2.ds1-11 is to 
 be installed
   locales: Depends: glibc-2.2.5-11.5

Hold libc6 until libdb1-compat, glibc-2.2.5-11.5 and try it again.

 how can i clean up these conflicts?

Read the output, it's self-explainetory.  It's not like RPM.


what i ended up doing was:

dpkg -i --force-overwrite /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.2.5-11.
5_i386.deb

somehow, that _seems_ to have fixed it. i can run apt-get -f install 
now and it does not complain (part of it's complaint was to remove 
more than 400 packages ... do i really, really, really want to do 
this?)










-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

[Paul Johnson]

Harland Christofferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 what i ended up doing was:

 dpkg -i --force-overwrite /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.2.5-11.
 5_i386.deb

 somehow, that _seems_ to have fixed it. i can run apt-get -f install 
 now and it does not complain (part of it's complaint was to remove 
 more than 400 packages ... do i really, really, really want to do 
 this?)

OK, so you didn't provide complete output.  Had I known about it
complaining specifically about files that were also supplied by some
other package, I would have suggested that.

-- 
 .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: :'  :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
  `-   Debian.  Because it *must* work.  debian.org   aboutdebian.com


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

[Harland Christofferson]

At Thursday, 18 March 2004, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Harland Christofferson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 what i ended up doing was:

 dpkg -i --force-overwrite /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.2.5-11.
 5_i386.deb

 somehow, that _seems_ to have fixed it. i can run apt-get -f install 
 now and it does not complain (part of it's complaint was to remove 
 more than 400 packages ... do i really, really, really want to do 
 this?)

OK, so you didn't provide complete output.  Had I known about it
complaining specifically about files that were also supplied by some
other package, I would have suggested that.



my apologies ... apt-get -f install complained about +400 packages,
i figured, probably after the initial email, that there must be 
a single package that was the root of all evil for me.













-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc problem

[Derrick 'dman' Hudson]

This is not an urgent issue, even for you.  (I say that because your
system works, just one non-critical program is not functioning)  Lucky
for you, though, I removed the filter I had that discarded all
messages with urgent in the subject.

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:02:09AM -0400, Vivek Kumar wrote:

| I am installing some virus scanner and when i try to run it i get the
| following error message
| /lib/libresolv.so.2: version `GLIBC_2.2' not found
| /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.2' not found
| 
| Can you please suggest me what to do. Thanks I appreciate your reply and
| help.

That virus scanner is a commercial binary-only product, right?

What version of libc6 do you have installed?

Possibly upgrading your libc6 package will eliminate the problem, or
perhaps the virus scanner needs to be (re)compiled against the new
libc.  I can't begin to guess which is correct until after I know what
version you currently have.

HTH,
-D

-- 
How great is the love the Father has lavished on us,
that we should be called children of God!
1 John 3:1
 
http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libc problem- Urgent

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:02:09AM -0400, Vivek Kumar wrote:
 I am installing some virus scanner and when i try to run it i get the
 following error message
 /lib/libresolv.so.2: version `GLIBC_2.2' not found
 /lib/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.2' not found
 
 Can you please suggest me what to do.

Upgrade libc6 to 2.2 or newer? The version in Debian stable should be
sufficient.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc broken?

[Oki DZ]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 03:14:57PM -0300, Raul Montagne wrote:
 and upgrading some libraries, one of the libraries was libc6...
 and was not completely upgradedit might be broken giving as a result
 an useless linux installationisn't it?
 In fact, the booting process just freezes!

Happened to me yesterday. I installed w3m, then apt-get updated libdl, 
libncurses5, and libc6. But, in my case, the machine could be booted, 
but bash wouldn't run. In the end, I couldn't get into the shell.

Makes me wonder why is that so important lib (libc) which was broken got 
uploaded into the distribution machines. Maybe, this is just a maybe, 
people have been so comfy with unstable and started to think that 
unstable is as stable as a rock. And the package maintainers don't quite 
like it to be so. 

Oki


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc broken?

[Colin Watson]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 07:03:45AM +0700, Oki DZ wrote:
 On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 03:14:57PM -0300, Raul Montagne wrote:
  and upgrading some libraries, one of the libraries was libc6...
  and was not completely upgradedit might be broken giving as a result
  an useless linux installationisn't it?
  In fact, the booting process just freezes!
 
 Happened to me yesterday. I installed w3m, then apt-get updated libdl, 
 libncurses5, and libc6. But, in my case, the machine could be booted, 
 but bash wouldn't run. In the end, I couldn't get into the shell.
 
 Makes me wonder why is that so important lib (libc) which was broken got 
 uploaded into the distribution machines.

It's not broken for the glibc maintainers. If it doesn't work for you
you need to help them understand the problem: helping to fix bugs is
part of the implicit contract of using unstable, by my way of thinking.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc broken?

[Andrea Tasso]

if you have another linux box installed on another partition, boot it and then mount 
the corrupted one and reinstall 
libc6 to that target, with the --root option of dpkg. If you have not, two choices: 
try to do what above with the deb 
install cd, or install a small box on a free partition and go.


On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 03:14:57PM -0300 or thereabouts, Raul Montagne wrote:
 Hi!
 Suppose that when I was trying to apt-get install imagemagick
 and upgrading some libraries, one of the libraries was libc6...
 and was not completely upgradedit might be broken giving as a result
 an useless linux installationisn't it?
 In fact, the booting process just freezes!
 
 1.- how can I check which was the last package tried to install
 (apt-log? dpkg-something?)
 2.-In case I have a libc6 or akind, is  it there any way to
 fix it without installing everything from scratch?
 
 thanks
 talueguito
 raul
 
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Libc 6.2, Debian and compiling modules for ATI Radeon 9700

[Harshwardhan Nagaonkar]

Nick Lidakis wrote:
Harshwardhan Nagaonkar wrote:



I was able to accomplish this by following ATI's well-enough written 
HOWTO (it is the Release Notes link). Their driver is compatible 
with the newer version of libc in unstable. I am currently running 
this setup right now. Just use their Xfree4.2.x and libc driver 
version and you will be fine.

Of course you have already done this last time with your 8500, but 
for other's convenience, be aware that you need to compile your own 
kernel (I did mine from debian sources and using make-kpkg). Just 
follow ATI's readme (Release Notes) and substitute the make-kpkg step 
at the end. You might have to re-run their make-install.sh script 
from /lib/modules/fglrx later.

But to summarize it all, it IS definetly possible to get the 
proprietary driver working on debian.

Actaully, I have encountered this question many times (most recently 
on slashdot). I am thinking about doing a HOWTO on this.. maybe help 
others who are in the situation I was in about 1 month ago.

Hope it helps,


I followed you advice, and aside from changing one line in the make sh 
to point to kernel-source-2.4.21, I got it up an running in 10 mins.

The endgame screensaver, with animation speed turned up to max, gives me 
180 FPS. It used to make my original Radeon 64mb VIVO crawl at 1FPS with 
3d enabled. 812 FPS with ATI's PBuffer GLXGears with this setup. :)
812 FPS!! I get about 780fps with that PBuffer GLXGears thing 
(fgl_glxgears, right?). And I have a FireGL X1 (allegedly r300 core -- 
Radeon 9700?)!! Which card did you say you had? :P

Hey and I can finally play stuff like America's Army and that free 
Wolfenstein game on linux.

I wonder if open source drivers would give even better results (since 
AA:O seems to be faster in windows, but that may be a Unreal engine 
porting issue?). Does ATI give out enough specs for our opensource DRI 
1337s (no offense, I really mean it with respect) to make one?

If these drivers work, why the ATI warnings and please use this 
Check.sh? Seems like it would turn linux customers away.
Actually if you look in their Release Notes (I know I'm being 
repetitive, but thats the best way to describe it) which is above the 
link to download the actual driver rpm.

They seem to have been updating it too. Since I used it last time by 
asking on this list about libc2.2 and libc2.3 compatibility. And this 
list almost always has the answers due to all the smart people here, so 
they said its compatible, I beleived and went through and it worked.

In the release notes, it says not to worry since libc2.3 IS compatible 
with their driver. They also say that Xfree4.3 works. I think thats cool 
of ATI to say that. Only maybe in a more visible place???

--
Harshwardhan Nagaonkar
Electrical Engineering Sysop
Brigham Young University, UT-84602
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Libc 6.2, Debian and compiling modules for ATI Radeon 9700

[Nick Lidakis]

Harshwardhan Nagaonkar wrote:
812 FPS!! I get about 780fps with that PBuffer GLXGears thing 
(fgl_glxgears, right?). And I have a FireGL X1 (allegedly r300 core -- 
Radeon 9700?)!! Which card did you say you had? :P
I purchased a Tyan Tachyon 9700 Pro, the only 9700 pro I know that comes 
withh a overclocking utility (and hardware monitor/ alarm) written by 
Tyan. I overclocked the GPU to 400Mhz in windows.

The whole system consists of an Intel 875PBZ motherboard, 2x512MB 400Mhz 
Ram in Dual DDR mode, and a Intel 3.06Ghz 800Mhz CPU, with the Tyan 9700 
PRO.

I also donwloaded the Fire GL series driver, as it seems to have been 
updated this April. The older driver is from November 2002.
Hey and I can finally play stuff like America's Army and that free 
Wolfenstein game on linux.

I wonder if open source drivers would give even better results (since 
AA:O seems to be faster in windows, but that may be a Unreal engine 
porting issue?). Does ATI give out enough specs for our opensource DRI 
1337s (no offense, I really mean it with respect) to make one?

If these drivers work, why the ATI warnings and please use this 
Check.sh? Seems like it would turn linux customers away.


Actually if you look in their Release Notes (I know I'm being 
repetitive, but thats the best way to describe it) which is above the 
link to download the actual driver rpm.

They seem to have been updating it too. Since I used it last time by 
asking on this list about libc2.2 and libc2.3 compatibility. And this 
list almost always has the answers due to all the smart people here, so 
they said its compatible, I beleived and went through and it worked.

In the release notes, it says not to worry since libc2.3 IS compatible 
with their driver. They also say that Xfree4.3 works. I think thats cool 
of ATI to say that. Only maybe in a more visible place???

I really wich they would update the docs regarding their drivers. Maybe 
I'll send them an e-mail thanking them for their drivers.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Libc 6.2, Debian and compiling modules for ATI Radeon 9700

[Harshwardhan Nagaonkar]

Harshwardhan Nagaonkar wrote:
Nick Lidakis wrote:

I just purchased a Radeon 9700 Pro (new MB also, Intel 875PBZ)so I 
could play America's Army in Linux. I used to play with a Radeon 
8500LE, debian testing, a custom kernel and ATI's drivers for 3d 
acceleration.
At this time last year ,IIRC, Debian testing had Libc 6.2, which 
according to the ATI website, is the only Libc these drivers will 
copile under. From the website:

Now, I was able to compile these modules last year and get 3d going 
just using ATI's howto, I have no idea how or what a Libc is. All I 
know is that using the 'Chech.sh', it's telling me that I have a newer 
Libc.

I am now using unstable. Can these drivers be used with Debian 
unstable and Xfree 4.2? What would be the correct way to accomplish this?

Any comments on Libc would be appreciated.


I was able to accomplish this by following ATI's well-enough written 
HOWTO (it is the Release Notes link). Their driver is compatible with 
the newer version of libc in unstable. I am currently running this setup 
right now. Just use their Xfree4.2.x and libc driver version and you 
will be fine.

Of course you have already done this last time with your 8500, but for 
other's convenience, be aware that you need to compile your own kernel 
(I did mine from debian sources and using make-kpkg). Just follow ATI's 
readme (Release Notes) and substitute the make-kpkg step at the end. You 
might have to re-run their make-install.sh script from 
/lib/modules/fglrx later.

But to summarize it all, it IS definetly possible to get the proprietary 
driver working on debian.

Actaully, I have encountered this question many times (most recently on 
slashdot). I am thinking about doing a HOWTO on this.. maybe help others 
who are in the situation I was in about 1 month ago.

Hope it helps,
Sorry, I didn't click reply-all, so it did not go to the list also 
(mozilla-mail).

--
Harshwardhan Nagaonkar
Electrical Engineering Sysop
Brigham Young University, UT-84602
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Libc 6.2, Debian and compiling modules for ATI Radeon 9700

[Nick Lidakis]

Harshwardhan Nagaonkar wrote:



I was able to accomplish this by following ATI's well-enough written 
HOWTO (it is the Release Notes link). Their driver is compatible 
with the newer version of libc in unstable. I am currently running 
this setup right now. Just use their Xfree4.2.x and libc driver 
version and you will be fine.

Of course you have already done this last time with your 8500, but for 
other's convenience, be aware that you need to compile your own kernel 
(I did mine from debian sources and using make-kpkg). Just follow 
ATI's readme (Release Notes) and substitute the make-kpkg step at the 
end. You might have to re-run their make-install.sh script from 
/lib/modules/fglrx later.

But to summarize it all, it IS definetly possible to get the 
proprietary driver working on debian.

Actaully, I have encountered this question many times (most recently 
on slashdot). I am thinking about doing a HOWTO on this.. maybe help 
others who are in the situation I was in about 1 month ago.

Hope it helps,

I followed you advice, and aside from changing one line in the make sh 
to point to kernel-source-2.4.21, I got it up an running in 10 mins.

The endgame screensaver, with animation speed turned up to max, gives me 
180 FPS. It used to make my original Radeon 64mb VIVO crawl at 1FPS with 
3d enabled. 812 FPS with ATI's PBuffer GLXGears with this setup. :)

If these drivers work, why the ATI warnings and please use this 
Check.sh? Seems like it would turn linux customers away.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-client2002 and php4-imap

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 12:57:59PM +0100, Markus Wolf wrote:
 There is an unresolved package dependencie when installing php4-imap
 module.

  http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

(but note that bugs are filed about this already)

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-client2002 configuration

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Tom Allison wrote:

 If I was using cramd5 password authentication
 And I upgraded to libc-client2002

 And I wanted to migrate to a non-plain text password scheme?


If you are using CRAM-MD5 you are already using a non-plaintext password
scheme.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc problem in potato

[Bruce Sass]

It is a known problem.  There is a { that should be a } in one of
the short functions near the start of the devpts.sh script, you can
correct it with your favorite editor.  Check the debian-user archives if
you need more info. 

--
On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Aaron Solochek wrote:

 ok, I was trying to install some stuff, and I got this.
 
 /etc/init.d/devpts.sh: line 63: syntax error: unexpected end of file
 dpkg: error processing libc6 (--configure):
  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 2
 Errors were encountered while processing:
  libc6
 
 Does anyone have a good copy of this file they can send me?  hopefully
 then dselect will be happy.

Re: libc problem in potato

[dinakar desai]

Hello Aaron:

One of the braces is reversed in that file. If you go through script, I am
sure, you will find it. Just replace it with correct brace and you are
set.

Hope it was of some help

Dinakar



On Fri, 11 Feb 2000, Aaron Solochek wrote:

 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 02:48:00 -0500
 From: Aaron Solochek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: debian- user debian-user@lists.debian.org
 Subject: libc problem in potato
 
 ok, I was trying to install some stuff, and I got this.
 
 /etc/init.d/devpts.sh: line 63: syntax error: unexpected end of file
 dpkg: error processing libc6 (--configure):
  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 2
 Errors were encountered while processing:
  libc6
 
 Does anyone have a good copy of this file they can send me?  hopefully
 then dselect will be happy.
 
 -Aaron Solochek
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-
Dr. Dinakar Desai, Ph.D
2-445 Alfred GI Research Unit
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, MN 55905
Phone: 507-255-9298
Fax: 507-255-6318
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home page(External): http://webpages.marshall.edu/~desaid
Homepage(intranet): http://r0072777.mayo.edu
==
 Opinions expressed in this message are solely mine and do not represent
anyone else.
  

Re: libc 6.1

[Adilson dos Santos Dantas]

On 5 Jun 99, at 5:01, Algernon NG wrote:

 Hi there!

 This is algernon. I'm quite new to Debian, and somehow managed to
 download
 some packages that require libc 6.1. Where can I find one? I looked on
 ftp.debian.org, but the newest I found was 6.0.7 or something, but
 surely 6.1.

 Thanks,
 Algernon NG of The MadHouse Project



Maybe you searched libc 6.1 in stable section. Try to look on the
unstable section. But there´s a more simple way to find your package.

run this command: apt-get update
and then: apt-get install libc

But, if apt says that this version is the most recent. Edit
/etc/apt/source.list and chang the word stable to unstable.

Repeat the two first command for donwloading and installing libc 6.1
or higher.

  []´s

 Adilson

|-|
|Adilson dos Santos Dantas - Rio de Janeiro - Brasil  |
|e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
|URL: http://www.lci.ufrj.br/~adilsond  ICQ UIN# : 4542346|
| http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/7479 |
|-|

Wethern's Law:
Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

Re: libc 6.1

[Brad]

On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Adilson dos Santos Dantas wrote:

 Try to look on the unstable section.

Here's the obligatory warning: unstable is called unstable for a reason.
If you can deal with things possibly breaking, go ahead and use it (and
file bug reports!). If you can't handle things possibly breaking, stay
with slink.

As an example, did you read the threads on su failing in potato? That's
just a small example of possible breakage...

In particular, you can't really upgrade only the libc6 package to
unstable, you have to upgrade a good number of your other packages as
well.

Re: libc 6 or 5

[E.L. Meijer \(Eric\)]

 
 folks,
 
 i have to confess - i am somewhat confused over this issue.
 the reason it's come up right now is netscape, i get inconsistent
 results using either version
 
 is there a definitive method for finding out which libc i am using?

Yes.  It can vary per executable.  The ldd command shows you which
libraries are used by an executable.  On a bo system, I get

$ ldd /bin/ls
libc.so.5 = /lib/libc.so.5.4.33

This is using libc5

On a hamm system, I get

$ ldd /bin/ls
libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0x4000f000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 = /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x4000)

This is using libc6, and the ld-linux.so.2 library.

 i am running debian hamm with a 2.0.34 kernel.

A hamm system is libc6, but you can run libc5 executables as wel.  For
them to work you need to install some packages from hamm's oldlibs
section.

HTH,
Eric

-- 
 E.L. Meijer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])  | tel. office +31 40 2472189
 Eindhoven Univ. of Technology | tel. lab.   +31 40 2475032
 Lab. for Catalysis and Inorg. Chem. (TAK) | tel. fax+31 40 2455054

Re: libc 6 or 5

[Rafael Kitover]

On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 03:25:15PM -0800, Daryl Williams wrote:
 folks,
 
 i have to confess - i am somewhat confused over this issue.
 the reason it's come up right now is netscape, i get inconsistent
 results using either version

netscape has been packaged thanks to doogie, just install
communicator-smotif-45 and everything that depends on. (probably from
unstable)

 is there a definitive method for finding out which libc i am using?
 
 i am running debian hamm with a 2.0.34 kernel.

hamm is a libc6 distribution

-- 
Rafael Kitover
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


pgpm4P1JYm6yV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libc and staroffice 5

[Rainer Clasen]

Hi!

Peter Bartosch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
 after upgrading libc on my hamm-box to slink´s 2.0.7u-4 my apt won´t install
 anything further!

IIRC you are currently running apt_0.1.6, aren't you?

 i´ve installed the new libc´s for staroffice 5.
 would installing slink´s apt (0.1.7 iirc) fix such problems?

maybe. BTW, currently apt is at 0.1.9.

But I'd say wait for libc6-2.0.7u-5, and install this one. There are
currently some problems related to -4 - check debian-devel for details.

 Updating package status cache...done
 Checking system integrity...dependency error
 You might want to run apt-get -f install' to correct these.
 Sorry, but the following packages are broken - this means they have unmet
 dependencies:
   apt: Depends:libc6

 but libc is installed:
...

This might be a versioned depends/conflicts (sorry, no apt_0.1.6 avail. to
verify). Check this either in dselect or with the help of
dpkg --status apt


Rainer

-- 
KeyID=58341901 fingerprint=A5 57 04 B3 69 88 A1 FB  78 1D B5 64 E0 BF 72 EB


pgp5VDJYq4beq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libc compatibility in Debian 2.0

[Martin Bialasinski]

Martin Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Will Debian 2.0 support compiling libc5 applications out of the box?  I am
 curious because Red Hat decided not to support this...

Yes.

You will need the -altdev packages for libc5 compiling. Then you prepend
/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/bin to the path and gcc, make etc. will use the
altdev packages and link with libc5.

Ciao,
Martin


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: libc compatibility in Debian 2.0

[Brandon Mitchell]

On Tue, 13 Jan 1998, Martin Jackson wrote:

 Will Debian 2.0 support compiling libc5 applications out of the box?  I am
 curious because Red Hat decided not to support this...

Yes, the altgcc and altdev's will permit this out of the box.

Brandon



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: libc info

[Adam Shand]

 I've just been browsing the GNU site trying to find out what the
 differences in the C libraries are and i could find no mention of
 libc5, libc6 or glibc.

My understanding isn't complete, and may in fact be downright wrong, but I
believe that libc6 is the second GNU libc and that libc4 (the old a.out
system) was the first one.  The migration away from the GNU libc (to libc5
which was ELF) I don't know the reasons for but presumably was becase
this other libc was more fully developed at the time.

 Is libc6 just another way of saying glibc?

Yep.  Debian is calling it libc6, RedHat is calling it glibc (GNU libc).
I don't know what the offical name is amoung linux users is.

 If you can refer me to any site/doc to satisfy my curiosity, please do
 so.

The Free Software Foundation's web site is probably as good a place as any
to start.  Try here:

http://www.fsf.org/software/libc/libc.html

Hope this helps,

Adam.

 Internet Alaska -
 4050 Lake Otis Adam Shand(v) +1 907 562 4638
 Anchorage, AlaskaSystems Administrator   (f) +1 907 562 1677
- http://larry.earthlight.co.nz --



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: libc/locale bug in strftime()?

[Riku Saikkonen]

is the source of your greaf, your 'struct tm' is not properly initalized
before a call to strftime().  You don't dynamically allocate your
structure, but it is allocated on the runtime stack, therefore it most
likely contains rubbish data, that breaks strftime().

Oops. Yes, you're right. I didn't think of that... *blush*

(Some history: I first found the bug when I noticed that a self-compiled
gnuplot 3.6beta-315 dumped core on its set locale command (which, among
other things, read the month names into gnuplot's internal structures). I
traced the bug to strftime() and wrote the test program I posted. But
apparently didn't think of valid initalisation...

I now got the newest beta of gnuplot (3.6beta-325), and it works (zeros the
struct tm before calling strftime()), so I guess someone else noticed the
bug too...)

By the way, thanks for the quick replies! I'm impressed. :)

-- 
-=- Rjs -=- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc/locale bug in strftime()?

[Orn E. Hansen]

Looking a  little better at your code... I expect you are assuming that
the memory allocation routine, has null'ed your data (I think I remember
that a 'struct tm' filled with zeroes should give Jan 1, 1970?).  This
is the source of your greaf, your 'struct tm' is not properly initalized
before a call to strftime().  You don't dynamically allocate your
structure, but it is allocated on the runtime stack, therefore it most
likely contains rubbish data, that breaks strftime().

main()
{
  char s[32];
  struct tm tm;
  
  tm.tm_mon=1;
  strftime(s,32,%b,tm);



Ørn Einar Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   home+fax; +46 035 217194


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc/locale bug in strftime()?

[Orn E. Hansen]

It is not a problem with strftime(), it works fine here (a demo at the end
of the letter) and I'm using libc5 version 5.4.20-1.  Nor is it a bug with
locale, as you're not using it in your demo (see below).

#include time.h
#include locale.h

main()
{
  time_t cur_time = time(NULL);
  struct tm *loct;
  char *str_time, buf[128];

  setlocale(LC_ALL, );
  str_time = ctime(cur_time);
  printf(%s\n, str_time);
  loct = localtime(cur_time);
  str_time = asctime(loct);
  printf(%s\n, str_time);
  strftime(buf, sizeof(buf), %a %d %b. %Y %Z %X, loct);
  printf(%s\n, buf);
  strftime(buf, sizeof(buf), %B, loct);
  printf(%s\n, buf);
}



Ørn Einar Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   home+fax; +46 035 217194


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-5.4.13

[Brian C. White]

 Hold on there. When was Debian 1.2 released?  Inquiring minds want to
 know..

With a little luck, it _will_ be released this Wednesday.  It has been
frozen since early November.
 
  Brian
 ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
 
---
   Give others some insight into YOUR pages!  http://www.verisim.com/insite/



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-5.4.13

[Bruce Perens]

From: Karl M. Hegbloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Will Debian 1.2 have libc-5.4.13?  It's on sunsite; says it's a bugfix.

If it's not a really big bug, that might wait for a point release. It's
being difficult to get the release to hold still (mostly where X is
concerned), and another moving target wouldn't help.

Thanks

Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key.
PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6  1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-5.4.13

[Bruce Perens]

From: Lawrence Chim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 It should be the last libc5 release and the next one should be libc6.

Debian 1.3 (the release after this one) is based on LIBC 6.

Bruce
--
Bruce Perens K6BP   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key.
PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6  1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-5.4.13

[Lawrence Chim]

Bruce Perens wrote:
 
 From: Lawrence Chim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  It should be the last libc5 release and the next one should be libc6.
 
 Debian 1.3 (the release after this one) is based on LIBC 6.
 

Hopefully netscape works with it :-)

lawrence,


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-5.4.13

[juan j casero]

On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Lawrence Chim wrote:

 Bruce Perens wrote:
  
  From: Lawrence Chim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   It should be the last libc5 release and the next one should be libc6.
  
  Debian 1.3 (the release after this one) is based on LIBC 6.
  
 

Hold on there. When was Debian 1.2 released?  Inquiring minds want to
know..


Juan Casero
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   __   _
  / /  (_)__  __   __
 / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /  . . .  t h e   c h o i c e   o f   a
//_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\  G N U   g e n e r a t i o n . . .


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-5.4.13

[David Engel]

Karl M. Hegbloom writes:
  Will Debian 1.2 have libc-5.4.13?  It's on sunsite; says it's a bugfix.

Unless Bruce vetoes it, yes.  I uploaded it last night.  It should
show up in the next few days.

David
-- 
David EngelOptical Data Systems, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX  75081


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc-5.4.13

[Lawrence Chim]

Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
 
  Will Debian 1.2 have libc-5.4.13?  It's on sunsite; says it's a bugfix.

It should be the last libc5 release and the next one should be libc6.

lawrence,


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc

[Warwick HARVEY]

Ricardo Kleemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Thanks!
 
 But I installed the debian ELF system and what it put in as default is 
 4.6.27.

What do you mean by saying the default is 4.6.27?  What are you doing
that's telling you this?  It's not like libc4.6 and libc5.2 are compatible -
they can't be used interchangeably, so any compiled program will specify
which it needs, and will refuse to work with the other.

Or do you mean that when you're *compiling*, it's compiling for 4.6 rather
than 5.2?  In that case, you need to update your compiler, linker, etc.

Warwick


Warwick Harveyemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Computer Sciencephone: +61-3-9344-9171
University of Melbourne fax: +61-3-9348-1184
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052 web: http://www.cs.mu.OZ.AU/~warwick


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc

[Ricardo Kleemann]

Thanks!

But I installed the debian ELF system and what it put in as default is 
4.6.27.

I have 5.2.18 in there (as the ldconfig -v shows) but it is not being 
used as default.

How do I go about upgrading/changing the default?

Ricardo

On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:

 Ricardo Kleemann wrote:
  
  Hi,
  
  I've installed the stable debian 1.1 release and noticed that my libc is
  defaulting to libc.so.4.6.27
  
  Is there any reason why it's not using a later libc? Are there bugs with
  libc versions  4.6 (either 5.x or 4.7)?
  
 
 Hi.
 
 I suspect libc4 never got upgraded to libc-4.7.5 because it's an a.out
 library needed by only a few obscure packages which only a few people
 use.
 
 Debian is ELF and is based on libc5.  The latest libc5 package (in rex)
 is libc-5.4.7, your system might have a libc-5.3.x.  I suggest you
 re-check your /lib or just run ldd on something -- say, 'ldd /bin/bash'.
 
 Rgds
 Dimitri
 

--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]