Le 21/06/2011 16:59, David Baron a écrit : >> > I, of course, did not touch the 2.13 ones. There are actually only a few > >> > of them but are locally symlinked. There would be three version of > >> > these, on /lib, lib/i386-gnu... and /lib/i686/cmov. The ones I checked a > >> > all different. > >> > > >> > > >> > Should the /lib ones be actually be removed? Should their symlinks be > >> > first changed to the i386 versions (like others in /lib ... and why is > >> > there an i686/cmov if it is not being used?) Hopefully this can be > >> > achieved without (temporarily) hosing the system. Another reason I feel > >> > the scripts should handle this stuff. All the 2.13 files are legal-dpkg > >> > items. > >> > >> There should not be any 2.13 file in /lib/ and /lib/i686/cmov should not > >> exist anymore. If all these 2.13 files are legal dpkg, can you please > >> tell us in which packages they are and in which versions? > > > OK, i686/cmov has been moved to /lib/i386-linux-gnu. So why did not dpkg > remove the originals (those were not files I copied)?
These files are provided by libc6-i686. Are you sure this package is correctly upgraded? What is the dpkg status about this one? > libc6 stuff now goes to /lib/i386-linux-gnu so why does this stuff still > exist in /lib (those were not files I copied)? That's a very good question, if the files haven't been installed by you (for example by using dpkg -x) and if the package is correctly upgraded (look at the dpkg status), this looks like a dpkg bug. > So do I simply remove EVERYTHING-2.13... from /lib, so's and symlinks? Yes, with the only exception of the /lib/ld-linux.so.2 -> /lib/i386-linux-gnu/ld-2.13.so symlink. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
