On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:28:19PM +0300, David Baron wrote: > On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 20:42:14 you wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 08:15:49PM +0300, David Baron wrote: > > > On Tuesday 19 Sivan 5771 20:00:29 Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > > > Do please check over the pre/post/install scripts involved so this > > > > > mess does not recur :-) > > > > > > > > I don't really know what can be done, the preinst script already abort > > > > the installation if a non-dpkg owned version of ld.so is found. After > > > > all why the preinst script should take care about files which have been > > > > placed there by the user? > > > > > > If they need be replaced, it should be handled. The main thing is that a > > > valid ld ...so needs be around or else. If there are more than one, > > > probably no harm as long as they point to the correct library. Telling > > > the user to get rid of the "non-dpkg" file, naming it, is dangerous. As > > > soon as it is deleted, the system is hosed. > > > > That's what I don't understand, which files did you removed exactly? I > > don't understand how your system could use a non-Debian provided > > dynamic linker. > > There was no other dynamic linker. When the upgrade said remove ld-2.13.so, I > did so and boom. If I remember, I placed a ld-linux.so symlink and it ate > that. (This name shown somewhere, I forget.) I ended up with a valid > ld-2.13.so.
Given the current code, the only way for it to happen was to have /lib/ld-2.13.so not owned by dpkg. I fail to see how it happened except if there is a bug in dpkg. What was the version from which you upgraded when it happened? -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
