On Thu 08 May 2025 at 19:04:55 (+0200), Bernard wrote: > On 02/05/2025 02:34, David Wright wrote: > > On Thu 01 May 2025 at 20:04:56 (+0200), Bernard wrote: > > > On 01/05/2025 06:10, David Wright wrote: > > > > I could suggest that you reinstall the library file packages if > > > > that didn't happen when you reinstalled vlc, but it's perfectly > > > > possible that the Debian versions of the libraries are in place > > > > already: > > > > > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Dec 6 2020 > > > > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libva-drm.so.2 -> libva-drm.so.2.1000.0 > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 14504 Dec 6 2020 > > > > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libva-drm.so.2.1000.0 > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 Dec 6 2020 > > > > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libva.so.2 -> libva.so.2.1000.0 > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 178736 Dec 6 2020 > > > > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libva.so.2.1000.0 > > > > l > > > > > > > > I don't know enough about how linux links libraries to say whether > > > > reinstalling those libraries would revert everything, or whether > > > > something could have polluted files like /etc/ld.so.* and > > > > /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*, which could cause /usr/local/lib/ to continue > > > > being preferred over the Debian versions. > > > > > > > > You might check the modification timestamps of those /etc/ files to > > > > see whether anything happened on 10 April, but be aware that there's > > > > an upgrade available for libc6 and libc-bin at the moment (assuming > > > > you haven't already upgraded them in the last 30 hours or so), and > > > > that could update timestamps. And anyway, I suspect the timestamp > > > > on /etc/ld.so.cache might not be very meaningful, as other things > > > > might refresh it. > > > /*I could suggest that you re-install…*/ > > > > > > (four lines dated dec 6 2020… => they are already in place, same date. > > > So, I suppose that there is no need to re-install, since it is likely > > > that the library file package did get re-installed when re-installing > > > vlc. > > I don't know, because the install process does more than just unpack > > the archive—but exactly what? > > It does a lot of things, as I just found when reading > > /var/log/agentdvr_setup.log > > dated april 10. 'agentdvr' checked my system and found that my libva > version was too old : 2.10 when 2.21+ was required. It proposed to > upgrade to 2.22 and I replied 'Y'. Agentdvr installed it with a long > list of required dependencies listed in the log file. I tried to > attach the file, but then the sending failed.
Rather than just dependencies, which we're all used to seeing, I was thinking of programs like ldconfig, mentioned by Anssi, which are run after the library package is in place. I have no familiarity with what they do. > Do you think that a apt-get update could solve the problem ? You can "clean" APT's lists by removing the ordinary files in /var/lib/apt/lists/ except for lock, and then running apt-get update, which will download just the lists referenced by your sources.list. However, then downgrading the too-new packages is a challenge, one I've never attempted on that scale. > If not, I may try an apt-get dist-upgrade... but I must say that in my > 20 yrs of Linux, I always failed dist upgrades, and in the end I every > time had to wipe out everything and reinstall a new version from > scratch... Which suite would you intend upgrading to? AIUI, libva2 2.22 would require trixie, as bookworm is only at 2.17. Cheers, David.
