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

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 ins

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

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 consid

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

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"

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 pro

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

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

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

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 d

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

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

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

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 ha

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

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. Noti

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

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 x

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

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

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

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: i

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

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:am

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

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

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

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.

Re: libc relocation error

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 fro

Re: libc relocation error

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

Re: libc relocation error

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

Re: libc relocation error

-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

Re: libc relocation error

[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 wi

Re: libc relocation error

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 seem

Re: libc relocation error

-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. >

Re: libc relocation error

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?

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

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 a

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

On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:47:13PM +0200, Florian Ernst wrote: > 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. >> [...] >> Ma

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

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 > fig

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

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-

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

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

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

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 depen

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

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 install

Re: libc confilcts with apt-get install

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

Re: libc problem- Urgent

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

Re: libc problem

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 wr

Re: libc broken?

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 installati

Re: libc broken?

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! Ha

Re: libc broken?

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 g

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

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 o

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

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 Xfr

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

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 dri

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

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, Debi

Re: libc-client2002 and php4-imap

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 PROTECTE

Re: libc-client2002 and php4-imap

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Markus Wolf wrote: > There is an unresolved package dependencie > when installing php4-imap module. > The libc-client2002 package is not found. It probably needs to be recompiled against libc-client2003. Did you check if a bug has been filed and if not, did you file one? -

Re: libc-client2002 configuration

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 <[EMA

Re: libc problem in potato

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: Aar

Re: libc problem in potato

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

Re: libc >6.1

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 brea

Re: libc >6.1

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. > > Th

Re: libc 6 or 5

> > 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 co

Re: libc 6 or 5

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

Re: libc and staroffice 5

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

Re: libc compatibility in Debian 2.0

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:

Re: libc compatibility in Debian 2.0

"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 pat

Re: libc info

> 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

Re: libc/locale bug in strftime()?

>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 did

Re: libc/locale bug in strftime()?

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 #include main() { time_t cur_time = time(NULL); struct tm *loct; char *s

Re: libc/locale bug in strftime()?

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

Re: libc-5.4.13

> 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

Re: libc-5.4.13

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]

Re: libc-5.4.13

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 Deb

Re: libc-5.4.13

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:

Re: libc-5.4.13

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 1

Re: libc-5.4.13

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 w

Re: libc-5.4.13

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

Re: libc

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 ca

Re: libc

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 Kleema