On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 02:11:00PM -0700, David Benfell wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/20/12 15:34, John Briggs wrote:
> > General Discussion about Arch Linux
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:41:08PM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote:
> >>> pacman -Su
> >>>
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/20/12 15:34, John Briggs wrote:
> General Discussion about Arch Linux
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:41:08PM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote:
>>> pacman -Su
>>>
>>
>> Not OK:
>>
>>> [root@shack n7dr]# pacman -Su :: Starting full system
>>> upgra
On 07/21/2012 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
I *think* that this means that in fact glibc owns all the files.
It means that no other package owns any files. It might still be that
there are files in /lib that are not owned by any package. pac
Ariel Popper said the following at 07/21/2012 09:24 AM :
> My reading comprehension may be lacking, but did you check to see if
> there are any files in /lib that are *not* owned by any package?
>
> find /lib -exec pacman -Qo -- {} +
>
> Commonly there are some directories like /lib/modules or
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 4:57 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
> I *think* that this means that in fact glibc owns all the files.
It means that no other package owns any files. It might still be that
there are files in /lib that are not owned by any package. pacman -Qo
/lib/* should tell you (or simply "ls
Maybe I'm missing an instruction somewhere, but I don't see it.
Doc
My reading comprehension may be lacking, but did you check to see if
there are any files in /lib that are *not* owned by any package?
find /lib -exec pacman -Qo -- {} +
Commonly there are some directories like /lib/mod
Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/20/2012 05:34 PM :
>>
>>> pacman -Su
>>>
>>
>> Not OK:
>>
>>> [root@shack n7dr]# pacman -Su
>>> :: Starting full system upgrade...
>>> resolving dependencies...
>>> looking for inter-conflicts...
>>>
>>> Targets (1): glibc-2.16.0-2
>>>
>>> Total Installed Size:
General Discussion about Arch Linux
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 03:41:08PM -0600, D. R. Evans wrote:
> > pacman -Su
> >
>
> Not OK:
>
> > [root@shack n7dr]# pacman -Su
> > :: Starting full system upgrade...
> > resolving dependencies...
> > looking for inter-conflicts...
> >
> > Targets (1): gli
On 07/20/2012 04:45 PM, Baho Utot wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 12:46 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 2012 6:08 PM, "Baho Utot" wrote:
>>> On 07/20/2012 10:47 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
> There's nothing on this system that hasn't come fr
D. R. Evans [2012.07.20 1541 -0600]:
> Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/19/2012 06:08 PM :
>
> >
> > Well, the filesystem instructions are older and applied at the time the
> > glibc
> > upgrade was not an issue yet. Combining the two instructions, I would
> > guess the
> > following shoul
On 07/20/2012 12:46 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012 6:08 PM, "Baho Utot" wrote:
On 07/20/2012 10:47 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
There's nothing on this system that hasn't come from either AUR or the
official arch repositories, so I do
Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/19/2012 06:08 PM :
>
> Well, the filesystem instructions are older and applied at the time the glibc
> upgrade was not an issue yet. Combining the two instructions, I would guess
> the
> following should work:
>
> pacman -Syu --ignore filesystem --ignore gl
Tom Gundersen said the following at 07/20/2012 02:41 PM :
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:36 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
>> Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/20/2012 12:27 PM :
>>
>>> think the reason why you are having a much more serious issue is that it
>>> seems
>>> you haven't updated your system
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 10:36 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
> Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/20/2012 12:27 PM :
>
>> think the reason why you are having a much more serious issue is that it
>> seems
>> you haven't updated your system in a long time. So now you're running into
>
> Approximately a
Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/20/2012 12:27 PM :
> think the reason why you are having a much more serious issue is that it seems
> you haven't updated your system in a long time. So now you're running into
Approximately a month, I believe. Certainly not a whole lot longer. I don't
regard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/20/12 07:47, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM, D. R. Evans
> wrote:
>> There's nothing on this system that hasn't come from either AUR
>> or the official arch repositories, so I don't know why I'm having
>> any problems at
D. R. Evans [2012.07.20 0827 -0600]:
> Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/19/2012 06:08 PM :
>
> >
> > Well, the filesystem instructions are older and applied at the time the
> > glibc
> > upgrade was not an issue yet. Combining the two instructions, I would
> > guess the
> > following shoul
Op 20 jul. 2012 16:21 schreef "D. R. Evans" het
volgende:
>
> Guus Snijders said the following at 07/20/2012 04:13 AM :
[...]
> > If i understand correctly, the symlinks for /var/run and /var/lock are
> > there already.
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > If fileystem is not yet upgraded, what might just work is
On Jul 20, 2012 6:08 PM, "Baho Utot" wrote:
>
> On 07/20/2012 10:47 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
>>>
>>> There's nothing on this system that hasn't come from either AUR or the
>>> official arch repositories, so I don't know why I'm having any
On 07/20/2012 10:47 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
There's nothing on this system that hasn't come from either AUR or the
official arch repositories, so I don't know why I'm having any problems at all
:-(
I have seen people having problems because
On 07/20/2012 10:27 AM, D. R. Evans wrote:
Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/19/2012 06:08 PM :
Well, the filesystem instructions are older and applied at the time the glibc
upgrade was not an issue yet. Combining the two instructions, I would guess the
following should work:
pacman -Syu -
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
> Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/19/2012 06:08 PM :
>
>>
>> Well, the filesystem instructions are older and applied at the time the glibc
>> upgrade was not an issue yet. Combining the two instructions, I would guess
>> the
>> following s
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM, D. R. Evans wrote:
> There's nothing on this system that hasn't come from either AUR or the
> official arch repositories, so I don't know why I'm having any problems at
> all :-(
I have seen people having problems because they installed packages
from repos that t
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Guus Snijders wrote:
> I'm a bit confused at this point if filesystem is now upgraded or not.
> If i understand correctly, the symlinks for /var/run and /var/lock are
> there already.
You should always have the symlink, regardless of whether or not
filesystem is
Norbert Zeh said the following at 07/19/2012 06:08 PM :
>
> Well, the filesystem instructions are older and applied at the time the glibc
> upgrade was not an issue yet. Combining the two instructions, I would guess
> the
> following should work:
>
> pacman -Syu --ignore filesystem --ignore gl
Guus Snijders said the following at 07/20/2012 04:13 AM :
>
> I'm a bit confused at this point if filesystem is now upgraded or not.
Your confusion can't possibly be as great as mine :-)
There's nothing on this system that hasn't come from either AUR or the
official arch repositories, so I don'
2012/7/20 David Benfell :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/19/12 16:42, D. R. Evans wrote:
>>
>> pacman -Syu --ignore filesystem && pacman -S filesystem --force
>>
>>
>>
>> and that gives:
>>
>>
>>
>> error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) glibc
D. R. Evans [2012.07.19 1742 -0600]:
> Alex Belanger said the following at 07/18/2012 05:27 AM :
> > pacman -Syu --ignore glibc pacman -Su
>
> > I had the same problem, went to archlinux website and they say exactly what
> > you need to do and why. You shouldn't toy with it yourself, nor use the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/19/12 16:42, D. R. Evans wrote:
>
> pacman -Syu --ignore filesystem && pacman -S filesystem --force
>
>
>
> and that gives:
>
>
>
> error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) glibc: /lib
> exists in filesystem Errors o
Alex Belanger said the following at 07/18/2012 05:27 AM :
> pacman -Syu --ignore glibc pacman -Su
> I had the same problem, went to archlinux website and they say exactly what
> you need to do and why. You shouldn't toy with it yourself, nor use the
> --force option. Try this, if it doesn't work,
Hello all,
I also experienced initial problems getting the new glibc 2.16.0-2 to
work. In my case, the problem was an older version of lib32-glibc (I
think I had version 2.14.x installed, sorry can't remember exactly).
After enabling the multilib repo in /etc/pacman.conf and doing
sudo pacman -Sy
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:27:11 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
Pruned
>
> You sholud delete the duplicate files from /usr/lib, did you do this?
> Then it _should_ work...
>
> -t
Hi Tom
Well word on the street is it seems to have worked at last
now i have another problem cropped up for which i wil
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:27:11 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
Pruned
>
> You sholud delete the duplicate files from /usr/lib, did you do this?
> Then it _should_ work...
>
> -t
Hi Tom
Ok i will give it a whirl see what transpires
CheersPete
--
Linux 7-of-9 3.4.4-3-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:27:57 -0400
Alex Belanger wrote:
> pacman -Syu --ignore glibc
> pacman -Su
> I had the same problem, went to archlinux website and they say
> exactly what you need to do and why. You shouldn't toy with it
> yourself, nor use the --force option. Try this, if it doesn't work,
pacman -Syu --ignore glibc
pacman -Su
I had the same problem, went to archlinux website and they say exactly what you
need to do and why. You shouldn't toy with it yourself, nor use the --force
option. Try this, if it doesn't work, they have an in-depth guide too.
Otherwise I cannot stress out m
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:24 PM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:22:53 +0200
> Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM, P .NIKOLIC
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:46:49 +0200
>> > Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM, P .NIKOLIC
>>
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:22:53 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM, P .NIKOLIC
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:46:49 +0200
> > Tom Gundersen wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM, P .NIKOLIC
> >> wrote:
> >> > Right after much faffing about i now have the
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Mauro Santos
wrote:
> It's not in the wiki and I haven't seen it suggested but for really
> stubborn and possibly borked cases couldn't one boot from other media
> and tell pacman to update outside of the default path with --root,
> --cachedir, --config and --gpgd
On 18-07-2012 08:09, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Andrew Hills wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>>> So if /lib is NOT a symlink, then all you should need is to delete all
>>> the files in /usr/lib that are not owned by any package. Then yo
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:19 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:46:49 +0200
> Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM, P .NIKOLIC
>> wrote:
>> > Right after much faffing about i now have the box back to
>>
>> So if /lib is NOT a symlink, then all you should need i
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:09:18 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Andrew Hills
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> >> So if /lib is NOT a symlink, then all you should need is to delete
> >> all the files in /usr/lib that are not owned by
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:46:49 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM, P .NIKOLIC
> wrote:
> > Right after much faffing about i now have the box back to
>
> So if /lib is NOT a symlink, then all you should need is to delete all
> the files in /usr/lib that are not owned by
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Andrew Hills wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> So if /lib is NOT a symlink, then all you should need is to delete all
>> the files in /usr/lib that are not owned by any package. Then you
>> should be able to upgrade.
>
> And if /lib
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> So if /lib is NOT a symlink, then all you should need is to delete all
> the files in /usr/lib that are not owned by any package. Then you
> should be able to upgrade.
And if /lib IS a symbolic link, delete it and let the glibc sync create i
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:19 AM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:
> Right after much faffing about i now have the box back to
So if /lib is NOT a symlink, then all you should need is to delete all
the files in /usr/lib that are not owned by any package. Then you
should be able to upgrade.
grep '^lib/' /var/lib/pacman/local/*/files | grep -v glibc
returns nothing at all
Please try that with
grep -v "local/glibc-2.16.0"
grep -v glibc is too simple actually and will filter out lib32-glibc for
example.
--
дамјан
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:27:35 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
> Hm how did /lib end up as a symlink to /usr/lib without those
> files being owned by glibc? Did you just copy it over manually and
> create the link yourself?
>
> -t
Right after much faffing about i now have the box back to
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 18:27:24 +0200
Guus Snijders wrote:
> Op 17 jul. 2012 18:01 schreef "P .NIKOLIC"
> het volgende:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:27:35 +0200
> > Tom Gundersen wrote:
> >
> > Pruned
> > >
> > > Hm how did /lib end up as a symlink to /usr/lib without those
> > > files being
Op 17 jul. 2012 18:01 schreef "P .NIKOLIC" het
volgende:
>
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:27:35 +0200
> Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
> Pruned
> >
> > Hm how did /lib end up as a symlink to /usr/lib without those
> > files being owned by glibc? Did you just copy it over manually and
> > create the link yo
On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:27:35 +0200
Tom Gundersen wrote:
Pruned
>
> Hm how did /lib end up as a symlink to /usr/lib without those
> files being owned by glibc? Did you just copy it over manually and
> create the link yourself?
>
> -t
Quite easily
I followed what was on the Arch web site an
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:19 PM, P .NIKOLIC wrote:
> I have followed all there is to follow tried all i can find to try yet
> i am still getting
>
> error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
> glibc: /lib exists in filesystem
> glibc: /usr/lib/ld-2.16.so exists in filesystem
> glibc:
Right then
Hi ..
I have followed all there is to follow tried all i can find to try yet
i am still getting
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files)
glibc: /lib exists in filesystem
glibc: /usr/lib/ld-2.16.so exists in filesystem
glibc: /usr/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 exists in fil
52 matches
Mail list logo
