Debian 12.5 i386 sudo returns "Illegal instruction"

> The new minimum requirement is i686. > Debian requires i686 compatibility - even when the arch is being displayed as i386 due to compatibility reasons. Thank you for your insights. I'll have to pay more attention to the release notes in the future. I have mourned the loss of my Soekris boxes an

Re: Debian 12.5 i386 sudo returns "Illegal instruction"

Am 25.04.2024 schrieb Vic tor : > On a fresh installation of Debian 12.5, i386 I receive "Illegal > instruction" when executing sudo. Is there any way to debug and > workaround this; should I take this to another list as a bug? Here it is described with gdb: https://stackove

Re: Debian 12.5 i386 sudo returns "Illegal instruction"

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 09:54:17AM -0400, Vic tor wrote: > On a fresh installation of Debian 12.5, i386 I receive "Illegal instruction" > when executing sudo. Is there any way to debug and workaround this; should I > take this to another list as a bug? > > This is on a S

Debian 12.5 i386 sudo returns "Illegal instruction"

On a fresh installation of Debian 12.5, i386 I receive "Illegal instruction" when executing sudo. Is there any way to debug and workaround this; should I take this to another list as a bug? This is on a Soekris net5501 powered by an AMD Geode LX which is the only oddball factor. I'

Re: TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received

> On Sep 7, 2022, at 12:41 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 12:37 -0600, Casey Deccio wrote: >> >>> On Sep 7, 2022, at 11:46 AM, Jim Popovitch >> > wrote: >>> >>> I saw some much of the verbose '15 > 14' logs that I just decided to >>> net.ipv4.tcp_wind

Re: TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received

On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 12:37 -0600, Casey Deccio wrote: > > > On Sep 7, 2022, at 11:46 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > > > I saw some much of the verbose '15 > 14' logs that I just decided to > > net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling=0 and be done with it. Cleared up the > > noise, haven't noticed any problem

Re: TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received

> On Sep 7, 2022, at 11:46 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote: > > I saw some much of the verbose '15 > 14' logs that I just decided to > net.ipv4.tcp_window_scaling=0 and be done with it. Cleared up the > noise, haven't noticed any problems since. ymmv. Sounds like you've seen a non-trivial amount of thi

Re: TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received

On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 11:09 -0600, Casey Deccio wrote: > Hi Michael, > > > On Sep 7, 2022, at 5:49 AM, Michael Grant wrote: > > > > I'm seeing this error over and over in /var/log/messages: > > > > Sep 6 05:02:42 hostname kernel: [408794.655182] TC

Re: TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received

Hi Michael, > On Sep 7, 2022, at 5:49 AM, Michael Grant wrote: > > I'm seeing this error over and over in /var/log/messages: > > Sep 6 05:02:42 hostname kernel: [408794.655182] TCP: tcp_parse_options: > Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received > Se

TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received

I'm seeing this error over and over in /var/log/messages: Sep 6 05:02:42 hostname kernel: [408794.655182] TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 > 14 received Sep 6 05:02:43 hostname kernel: [408794.830639] TCP: tcp_parse_options: Illegal window scaling value 15 >

CUDA error illegal memory access

With debian 11 bullseye I encounter illegal mem access when trying to carry out molecular dynamics on two GTX 680. On the same linux box no such error was encountered with debian 10. The error arose with upgrading to 11' Thanks for advice FATAL ERROR: CUDA error cudaStreamSynchronize(strea

Lot of the "Illegal Request" errors at the boot time

Hello, I have a HA storage and 2 HBAs and get lot of the "illegal request" errors at computer boot time. For example, there are 2 LUN on the storage. The multipath software shows 2 active and 6 passive, total 8 devices. The multipath mechanism works fine. But the computer's

Seamonkey 2.2 illegal instruction after upgrading to it

I an run Debian squeeze and i do use Iceape as Default if i have a problem with other browser I have Seamonkey 2.2 install in my home dir it was working before i upgraded. I run it from the command line i get illegal instruction. I did download it and ran it from the commmand line i get the

Re: Iceweasel crashes with Illegal Instruction error message

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 11:42:08 -0700, Tech Geek wrote: >> Are you sure you don't have flash player or java or any other plugin/ >> extension installed? They can be located in many places. Run: >> >> locate libflashplayer.so > Running the above commands returns nothing. That was the Adobe Flash pl

Re: Iceweasel crashes with Illegal Instruction error message

> Are you sure you don't have flash player or java or any other plugin/ > extension installed? They can be located in many places. Run: > > locate libflashplayer.so Running the above commands returns nothing. I am sure I have not installed any plugin, extension, add-on, etc. after installing icewea

Re: Iceweasel crashes with Illegal Instruction error message

On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:21:12 -0700, Tech Geek wrote: > This happen on a fresh installed Debian 6.0.2 with 2.6.32-5-486 kernel. > Running Icewesel web browser: > # iceweasel > crashes as soon as the brower loads with the error message "Illegal > Instruction" >

Iceweasel crashes with Illegal Instruction error message

Hello, This happen on a fresh installed Debian 6.0.2 with 2.6.32-5-486 kernel. Running Icewesel web browser: # iceweasel crashes as soon as the brower loads with the error message "Illegal Instruction" Running Iceweasel with the following two commands works fine and I no longer see

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On Ma, 21 sep 10, 22:37:42, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > Well, I'm actually making progress here. I went back and started > over. This time I didn't install the desktop task - only the > standard system one. Everything from the command line seems to work > fine, including ps. > > So the next step is

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/22/2010 11:48 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Jerry, You keep saying things like: I appreciate the comments, but people just don't understand. Another virtual machine is NOT an option here. I either get it to work under Virtual PC or have to toss Debian all together. There are no other choices.

Re: Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

Jerry, You keep saying things like: I appreciate the comments, but people just don't understand. Another virtual machine is NOT an option here. I either get it to work under Virtual PC or have to toss Debian all together. There are no other choices. The decision is totally out of my hands. As

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

Well, I'm actually making progress here. I went back and started over. This time I didn't install the desktop task - only the standard system one. Everything from the command line seems to work fine, including ps. So the next step is to figure out what is installed when desktop is selected.

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

For instance, I routinely run Virtualbox and NMware Desktop simultaneously. But if I forget and start XP mode while either or both are running---BOOM! BSOD. I doubt anyone cares, but I thought I should clarify. My experience has been thus: If you are running VPC and you start Virtualbox, vbo

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

t;> Cheers >> > > I really do appreciate the work - especially at 4AM! > > I did get a little farther.  I stopped gdm and tried it from a command > prompt; no change.  So I brought up gdb and found the illegal instruction is > in libproc-3.2.7.so. > > Not knowing

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

aring gloves, no debugger running, honest, NOP, NOP, NOP ;-p More (hopefully) later... Cheers I really do appreciate the work - especially at 4AM! I did get a little farther. I stopped gdm and tried it from a command prompt; no change. So I brought up gdb and found the illegal instruction is i

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

install and >>> get gnome's display correct. >>> >>> I still have several problems, which may be related. The easiest one >>> to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. >>> This occurs whether I run as a user or root

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 12:41 PM, Arthur Machlas wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/20/2010 11:29 AM, Arthur Machlas wrote: The thing of it is, this doesn't sound like a Debian problem/question. And most every suggestion is given with that in mind. So if you wanted to see

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

h may be related. The easiest one to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. This occurs whether I run as a user or root. I've done a lot of looking, but don't seem to find anything similar. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm still pretty much a noob

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 7:20 PM, Mark Allums wrote: On 9/20/2010 10:03 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I appreciate the comments, but people just don't understand. Another virtual machine is NOT an option here. I either get it to work under Virtual PC or have to toss Debian all together. There are no other choic

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 7:51 PM, Mark Allums wrote: On 9/20/2010 10:03 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I appreciate the comments, but people just don't understand. Another virtual machine is NOT an option here. I either get it to work under Virtual PC or have to toss Debian all together. There are no other choic

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 6:51 PM, Mark Allums wrote: For instance, I routinely run Virtualbox and NMware Desktop simultaneously. But if I forget and start XP mode while either or both are running---BOOM! BSOD. That's VMware, not NMware. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 10:03 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I appreciate the comments, but people just don't understand. Another virtual machine is NOT an option here. I either get it to work under Virtual PC or have to toss Debian all together. There are no other choices. The decision is totally out of my hand

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 10:03 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I appreciate the comments, but people just don't understand. Another virtual machine is NOT an option here. I either get it to work under Virtual PC or have to toss Debian all together. There are no other choices. The decision is totally out of my hand

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

Arthur Machlas wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: On 20/09/10 10:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: This is a new install of Lenny on Windows 7 Virtual PC. I basically Perhaps some of the links off this link might be useful http://blogs.msdn.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?q

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >  On 20/09/10 10:15, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> This is a new install of Lenny on Windows 7 Virtual PC.  I basically > Perhaps some of the links off this link might be useful > http://blogs.msdn.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?q=linux§ions=4122

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

asiest one > to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. > This occurs whether I run as a user or root. > > I've done a lot of looking, but don't seem to find anything similar. > Does anyone have any ideas? > > I'm still pret

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 9/20/2010 11:29 AM, Arthur Machlas wrote: >> >> The thing of it is, this doesn't sound like a Debian problem/question. >> And most every suggestion is given with that in mind. So if you wanted >> to see if it was a Debian problem, then yo

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

The thing of it is, this doesn't sound like a Debian problem/question. And most every suggestion is given with that in mind. So if you wanted to see if it was a Debian problem, then you'd do things like try it in another VM. Of course, this isn't possible for whatever reason - doesn't matter - ther

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

that Debian does not run on it proves that it is buggy. Since it is closed source only Microsoft has any realistic chance of finding the bug. > Guesses, opinions, etc. won't make it. Microsoft claims that it would be illegal for us to try to find the bug even if we thought it worth the

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:03:28 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 9/20/2010 9:54 AM, Camaleón wrote: (...) >> A quick view of Wikipedia virtual machines comparison chart states so: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machines >> >> - Third, because by you'll get further

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 9:54 AM, Camaleón wrote: On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:15:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: (...) I still have several problems, which may be related. The easiest one to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. This occurs whether I run as a user or r

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:15:42 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: (...) > I still have several problems, which may be related. The easiest one to > find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. This > occurs whether I run as a user or root. > > I've do

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 8:30 AM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: On Seg, 20 Set 2010, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I need to make this work or have concrete reasons as to why it doesn't work. Guesses, opinions, etc. won't make it. Stubbornly sticking to a software that you empirically determined that doesn't work wo

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 8:27 AM, Eric Viseur wrote: Okay. Allow me to make things clear. Most of us DON'T F** KNOW why it doesn't work. But it came to us that it won't work no matter what we do. I personnally tried to have Virtual PC work with Linux on 7 'cause I have Windows XP Mode running, but i c

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

h may be related. The easiest one to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. This occurs whether I run as a user or root. I've done a lot of looking, but don't seem to find anything similar. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm still pretty much a noob

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On Seg, 20 Set 2010, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I need to make this work or have concrete reasons as to why it doesn't work. Guesses, opinions, etc. won't make it. Stubbornly sticking to a software that you empirically determined that doesn't work won't make it, too. But it's your computer and yo

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

Okay. Allow me to make things clear. Most of us DON'T F** KNOW why it doesn't work. But it came to us that it won't work no matter what we do. I personnally tried to have Virtual PC work with Linux on 7 'cause I have Windows XP Mode running, but i couldn't get it to work. Try ALOT of possib

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/20/2010 12:12 AM, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: Jerry Stuckle writes: And as to the suggestions from other users to try another VM - that's not open for discussion unless you can tell my why the one that comes with Windows 7 doesn't work. It's fairly difficult to answer such a guestion, es

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/19/2010 11:27 PM, Mark Allums wrote: On 9/19/2010 10:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: As I said - unless you can tell me WHY it doesn't work, it's not open for discussion. The fact you tried it with one distro and don't like Microsoft are NOT valid reasons. I did not say I don't like Micros

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 20/09/10 14:12, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: > Jerry Stuckle writes: >> And as to the suggestions from other users to try another VM - that's >> not open for discussion unless you can tell my why the one that comes >> with Windows 7 doesn't work. > It's fairly difficult to answer such a guestio

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

Jerry Stuckle writes: > And as to the suggestions from other users to try another VM - that's > not open for discussion unless you can tell my why the one that comes > with Windows 7 doesn't work. It's fairly difficult to answer such a guestion, especially without source code to Windows 7 :-)

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

asiest one > to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. > This occurs whether I run as a user or root. > > I've done a lot of looking, but don't seem to find anything similar. > Does anyone have any ideas? > > I'm still pret

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 20/09/10 13:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 9/19/2010 10:00 PM, Mark Allums wrote: >> On 9/19/2010 8:41 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >>> And as to the suggestions from other users to try another VM - that's >>> not open for discussion unless you can tell my why the one that comes >>> with Windows

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/19/2010 10:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: As I said - unless you can tell me WHY it doesn't work, it's not open for discussion. The fact you tried it with one distro and don't like Microsoft are NOT valid reasons. I did not say I don't like Microsoft. I tried it with seven distros. Grant

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/19/2010 10:00 PM, Mark Allums wrote: On 9/19/2010 8:41 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: And as to the suggestions from other users to try another VM - that's not open for discussion unless you can tell my why the one that comes with Windows 7 doesn't work. It doesn't work because it doesn't work

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 19:48:49 -0500 Mark Allums wrote: > Your problem is probably Virtual PC. Try Virtualbox (free) or VMware > server (free) or VMware Desktop (paid and kind of expensive but much > more usable for newbies than server). Its a known problem. very much a known problem! its some

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/19/2010 8:41 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: And as to the suggestions from other users to try another VM - that's not open for discussion unless you can tell my why the one that comes with Windows 7 doesn't work. It doesn't work because it doesn't work. Microsoft doesn't care if any OS besides

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

On 9/19/2010 8:23 PM, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote: Jerry Stuckle writes: I still have several problems, which may be related. The easiest one to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. This occurs whether I run as a user or root. So gnome starts but ps f

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. This occurs whether I run as a user or root. I've done a lot of looking, but don't seem to find anything similar. Does anyone have any ideas? I'm still pretty much a noob on Linux, so please be gentle :) Your

RE: ps - Illegal Instruction

elated. The easiest one to > find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. This > occurs whether I run as a user or root. > > I've done a lot of looking, but don't seem to find anything similar. > Does anyone have any ideas? > > I'm sti

Re: ps - Illegal Instruction

Jerry Stuckle writes: > I still have several problems, which may be related. The easiest one > to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when I run a simple ps command. > This occurs whether I run as a user or root. So gnome starts but ps fails? Very odd. Please 1) apt-get install

ps - Illegal Instruction

This is a new install of Lenny on Windows 7 Virtual PC. I basically took the defaults, with a couple of changes to get it to install and get gnome's display correct. I still have several problems, which may be related. The easiest one to find is an "Illegal Instruction" when

Re: Warning: "Illegal" hostnames no longer work

David Baron : > For ever, I was getting a bootup message that by hostname was illegal. After > that, everything, I mean everything, worked with that hostname 100% > > As of the latest upgrades off Sid, the illegal hostname is no longer > accepted > by the system an

Warning: "Illegal" hostnames no longer work

For ever, I was getting a bootup message that by hostname was illegal. After that, everything, I mean everything, worked with that hostname 100% As of the latest upgrades off Sid, the illegal hostname is no longer accepted by the system and there is then no hostname and many things do not like

Re: problem with firefox not starting illegal instruction

> > Support for GNOME in Iceweasel ii iceweasel-l10n-en-gb > > 1:3.5.6+debian-1English (Great Britain) language package for > > > > tries to start, multiple flashes and then nothing but illegal > > instruction. > > > > using

Re: problem with firefox not starting illegal instruction

English (Great Britain) language package for > > tries to start, multiple flashes and then nothing but illegal > instruction. > > using gdb (real novice), I can see the stack trace is from gnomevfs + > xulrunner I think Have you tried to launch it in safe mode? "

problem with firefox not starting illegal instruction

nothing but illegal instruction. using gdb (real novice), I can see the stack trace is from gnomevfs + xulrunner I think Alex -- WARNING: Consumption of alcohol may cause an influx in the time-space continuum, whereby small (and sometimes large) gaps of time may seem to literally disappear

Re: audacious: Illegal instruction

t ;-) So the problem lies with the most recent version (audacious_1.5.1-1_i386.deb) and is explained in bug 489037. Hugo You could run audacious inside gdb and find out where it hits the illegal instruction - the few times I've encountered this problem, it's been because the binary

Re: audacious: Illegal instruction

the problem... I don't see how it could be the kernel exposing this issue. You could run audacious inside gdb and find out where it hits the illegal instruction - the few times I've encountered this problem, it's been because the binary was compiled with features the processor doesn&#x

Re: audacious: Illegal instruction

Florian Kulzer wrote: On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:30:09 -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Hi, In Sid, I just installed audacious. And I get this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ audacious -v Audacious 1.5.1 [UNSUPPORTED VERSION] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ audacious Illegal instruction [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uname

Re: audacious: Illegal instruction

On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 12:30:09 -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > Hi, > > > In Sid, I just installed audacious. And I get this: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ audacious -v > Audacious 1.5.1 [UNSUPPORTED VERSION] > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ audacious > Illegal instruction &

Re: audacious: Illegal instruction

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > Hi, > > > In Sid, I just installed audacious. And I get this: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ audacious -v > Audacious 1.5.1 [UNSUPPORTED VERSION] > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ audacious > Illegal

audacious: Illegal instruction

Hi, In Sid, I just installed audacious. And I get this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ audacious -v Audacious 1.5.1 [UNSUPPORTED VERSION] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ audacious Illegal instruction [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uname -a Linux debian 2.6.25.9 #1 PREEMPT Wed Jul 2 16:46:37 CDT 2008 i686 GNU/Linux What&#

Re: Illegal locales?

On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 02:26:40PM +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote: > I noticed that my locale definitions are not defined in the available > system locales: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ locale > LANG=en_US.UTF-8 > LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF-8" > LC_NUMERIC="en_US.UTF-8" > LC_TIME="en_US.UTF-8" > LC_COLLATE="en_US.

Illegal locales?

I noticed that my locale definitions are not defined in the available system locales: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ locale LANG=en_US.UTF-8 LC_CTYPE="en_US.UTF-8" LC_NUMERIC="en_US.UTF-8" LC_TIME="en_US.UTF-8" LC_COLLATE="en_US.UTF-8" LC_MONETARY="en_US.UTF-8" LC_MESSAGES="en_US.UTF-8" LC_PAPER="en_US.UTF-

Re: sigill (illegal instruction) in latest nvidia 169.12 in lenny

On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Sven Joachim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have a look at the documentation under > /usr/share/doc/nvidia-glx/README.txt.gz and at bug #462429¹ how to > disable instructions your processor does not have. Thanks for that info. I stumbled upon that info after looki

Re: sigill (illegal instruction) in latest nvidia 169.12 in lenny

Hi David, On 2008-05-03 20:50 +0200, David Fox wrote: > But the GL code (which I suspect is nvidia-glx) doesn't work anymore. > Even things like glxgears fail now with "illegal instruction". Have a look at the documentation under /usr/share/doc/nvidia-glx/README.txt.gz an

sigill (illegal instruction) in latest nvidia 169.12 in lenny

.24.1 kernel, after using 100.14.12 for quite sometime with kernel 2.6.22-2 (or 3). But the GL code (which I suspect is nvidia-glx) doesn't work anymore. Even things like glxgears fail now with "illegal instruction". For instance (this morning's attempt with stellarium) [EM

Re: illegal access using ssh

On (01/12/05 14:02), H.S. wrote: > Amish Rughoonundon wrote: > > Hi, > > I was looking at my auth.log file and I saw a bunch of these things: > > Nov 28 16:22:41 localhost sshd[11363]: Illegal user nobody from 212.0.148.2 > > > > I was wondering if there is

Re: illegal access using ssh

Amish Rughoonundon wrote: > Hi, > I was looking at my auth.log file and I saw a bunch of these things: > Nov 28 16:22:41 localhost sshd[11363]: Illegal user nobody from 212.0.148.2 > > I was wondering if there is a way to filter the ip allowed to access the > computer and all

Re: illegal access using ssh

]> To: Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:32 AM Subject: Re: illegal access using ssh Amish Rughoonundon wrote: I was looking at my auth.log file and I saw a bunch of these things: Nov 28 16:22:41 localhost sshd[11363]: Illegal user nobody from 212.0.148.2 I was wondering if there is a way

Re: illegal access using ssh

Amish Rughoonundon wrote: > I was looking at my auth.log file and I saw a bunch of these things: > Nov 28 16:22:41 localhost sshd[11363]: Illegal user nobody from > 212.0.148.2 > > I was wondering if there is a way to filter the ip allowed to access > the computer and allow o

illegal access using ssh

Hi, I was looking at my auth.log file and I saw a bunch of these things: Nov 28 16:22:41 localhost sshd[11363]: Illegal user nobody from 212.0.148.2 I was wondering if there is a way to filter the ip allowed to access the computer and allow only 1 ip (mine) to do so. Thanks a lot, Amish

ldconfig: Illegal instruction

During an upgrade, I got the following output: "/var/lib/dpkg/info/libreadline5.postinst: line 6: 1322 Illegal instruction ldconfig" I don't think the problem is in the package since I get the same Illegal instruction message when I try running ldconfig separately from t

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

On 10/09/05, Chris Purves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A recent upgrade with aptitude on testing exited halfway through with the > following error: > > Preconfiguring packages ... > Setting up libpam0g (0.76-23) ... > /var/lib/dpkg/info/libpam0g.postinst: line 3: 317

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

he stable version. Then I tried your suggestion and tried a different server then upgraded libc6 using aptitude. Same problem. with Illegal instruction. The new version of libc6 has to restart a bunch of services and recommends a reboot in case there are some problems with different services, but I&

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

Chris Purves wrote: >I also >updated a second system on the same day from testing main (although >from a different server) and didn't have any problems. > > It's a long shot, but you might try changing the problem machine to point to the server used by the non-problem machine. -- Kent -- T

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

Luc, what is your kernel version? -- Take care, eh. Chris

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

Chris Purves wrote: >On 12/09/05, Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Chris: What does your "/etc/apt/sources.list" look like? Do you have any >>non-official sources in it? Do you have a mix of branches, and if so, >>what's the order of them? >> >> >I should have addressed this the fi

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I can report the same problem. > >"aptitude upgrade" fails because a series of post-installation scripts >exits with "28690 Illegal instruction ldconfig". I also get "Illegal >instruction" when invoking ldconfig manually. &

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

I can report the same problem. "aptitude upgrade" fails because a series of post-installation scripts exits with "28690 Illegal instruction ldconfig". I also get "Illegal instruction" when invoking ldconfig manually. "dist-upgrade" equally fails. I also t

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

;/sbin/ldconfig", ["ldconfig"], [/* 17 vars */]) = 0 > uname({sysname="Linux", nodename="dmcnet", release="2.2.20", > version="#1 Sat Apr 20 11:45:28 EST 2002", machine="i686"}) = 0 > --- SIGILL (Illegal instruction) @ 0 (0

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

;, nodename="dmcnet", release="2.2.20", version="#1 Sat Apr 20 11:45:28 EST 2002", machine="i686"}) = 0 --- SIGILL (Illegal instruction) @ 0 (0) --- +++ killed by SIGILL +++ <<< That's the output, but it's not much more information. -- Take care, eh.Chris

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

t; esac > > # Automatically added by dh_makeshlibs > if [ "$1" = "configure" ]; then > ldconfig > fi > # End automatically added section > <<< > > Line 3 is the case statement. I don't have much practice with shell >

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

On 9/10/05, Kent West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Chris Purves wrote:> A recent upgrade with aptitude on testing exited halfway through with> the following error:>> Preconfiguring packages ...> Setting up libpam0g (0.76-23) ...> /var/lib/dpkg/info/libpam0g.postins

Re: ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

Chris Purves wrote: > A recent upgrade with aptitude on testing exited halfway through with > the following error: > > Preconfiguring packages ... > Setting up libpam0g (0.76-23) ... > /var/lib/dpkg/info/libpam0g.postinst: line 3: 31771 Illegal > instruction ldconfig I&

ldconfig responds with Illegal Instruction, cannot

A recent upgrade with aptitude on testing exited halfway through with the following error: Preconfiguring packages ... Setting up libpam0g (0.76-23) ... /var/lib/dpkg/info/libpam0g.postinst: line 3: 31771 Illegal instruction ldconfig dpkg: error processing libpam0g (--configure):  subprocess

Re: Illegal Seek (Sendmail)

die "Can't do system_comand : $!";   It will fail with this illegal seek error.   Instead use :  system("system_command") and die "Can't do system_command : $! ";   use "and" because system() returns 0 on successful completion.       Good luck,

Re: Illegal instruction on Gimp startup

On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 18:47 -0700, David E. Fox wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:05:01 +0200 > strawks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > (script-fu:26063): LibGimpBase-WARNING **: script-fu: wire_read(): error > > Illegal instruction (core dumped) > >

Re: Illegal instruction on Gimp startup

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:05:01 +0200 strawks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (script-fu:26063): LibGimpBase-WARNING **: script-fu: wire_read(): error > Illegal instruction (core dumped) > > The call trace says the Illegal instruction appens in the > libgimpwidgets-2.0.so.0

Re: Illegal instruction on Gimp startup

On 16. July 2005 at 9:05PM +0200, strawks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have installed Gimp 2.2.8 on a Pentium 2 and when it starts, just > after initializing script-fu, it says : > > (script-fu:24106): LibGimpBase-WARNING **: script-fu: wire_read(): error > Illegal instruc

  1   2   >