At 17:54 9/10/2002 +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:16, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > >So your package system has libc6 marked as installed but /lib/libc.so.6
> > >is not there. Is that correct?
> >
> > No, it has /lib/libc.so.6 but it's just a previous version.
> >
> > I gu
On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:16, Chris McCormick wrote:
> >So your package system has libc6 marked as installed but /lib/libc.so.6
> >is not there. Is that correct?
>
> No, it has /lib/libc.so.6 but it's just a previous version.
>
> I guess this problem is going to be the dpkg race condition that Co
At 22:15 8/10/2002 +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 14:59, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > At 18:32 7/10/2002 +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
> >
> > >ls -alF /lib/libc[-.]*
> > >
> > >-rwxr-xr-x1 root root 888096 Sep 26 02:30
> > >/lib/libc-2.1.3.so*
> > >lrwxrwxr
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:15:21PM +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 14:59, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > At 18:32 7/10/2002 +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
> > >ls -alF /lib/libc[-.]*
> > >
> > >-rwxr-xr-x1 root root 888096 Sep 26 02:30
> > >/lib/libc-2.1.3.so*
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 14:59, Chris McCormick wrote:
> At 18:32 7/10/2002 +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
>
> >ls -alF /lib/libc[-.]*
> >
> >-rwxr-xr-x1 root root 888096 Sep 26 02:30
> >/lib/libc-2.1.3.so*
> >lrwxrwxrwx1 root root 13 Oct 7 18:17 /lib/libc.so.6
> >-
At 18:32 7/10/2002 +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 16:40, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > I'm suspecting i might have some kind of broken glibc action going on. I
> > think that it might not be able to re-attach to tar because of an actual
> > corruption in the library binaries
e it's the correct place.
> >
> > I am having a strange apt-get upgrade issue on one of our production boxes:
> >
> > xx:~# apt-get update
> > [this works fine]
> >
> > xx:~# apt-get upgrade
> > Reading Package Lists... Done
> > B
Hi,
What does your /etc/apt/sources.list say?
Mike
Quoting Chris McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi!
> Firstly, my apologies if this is the wrong forum to post to, but from what
> I've seen it seems like it's the correct place.
>
> I am having a strange apt-
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:32:22PM +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 16:40, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > I'm suspecting i might have some kind of broken glibc action going on. I
> > think that it might not be able to re-attach to tar because of an actual
> > corruption in th
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 16:40, Chris McCormick wrote:
> I'm suspecting i might have some kind of broken glibc action going on. I
> think that it might not be able to re-attach to tar because of an actual
> corruption in the library binaries that handle that kind of thing. Maybe
> it's half instal
At 09:36 7/10/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:33:27PM +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 12:57, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > > At 12:41 7/10/2002 +0800, you wrote:
> > > >Can you dump it on a webpage and post the URL to the list?
> > >
> > > Sure,
> > > htt
At 13:33 7/10/2002 +0800, you wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 12:57, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > At 12:41 7/10/2002 +0800, you wrote:
> > >On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 12:34, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > > > >You could try comparing straces of the dpkg command when it works and
> > > > >when it doesn't work
>
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:33:27PM +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 12:57, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > At 12:41 7/10/2002 +0800, you wrote:
> > >Can you dump it on a webpage and post the URL to the list?
> >
> > Sure,
> > http://203.59.70.242/strace_dpkg_output.txt
>
> [pi
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 12:57, Chris McCormick wrote:
> At 12:41 7/10/2002 +0800, you wrote:
> >On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 12:34, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > > >You could try comparing straces of the dpkg command when it works and
> > > >when it doesn't work
> > > >
> > > >strace -fF dpkg -X packagename.
At 12:41 7/10/2002 +0800, you wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 12:34, Chris McCormick wrote:
> > >You could try comparing straces of the dpkg command when it works and
> > >when it doesn't work
> > >
> > >strace -fF dpkg -X packagename.deb /path/to/testdir 2>strace.output
> >
> > Excellent suggestio
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 12:34, Chris McCormick wrote:
> >You could try comparing straces of the dpkg command when it works and
> >when it doesn't work
> >
> >strace -fF dpkg -X packagename.deb /path/to/testdir 2>strace.output
>
> Excellent suggestion - at the moment I can't get it to run correctly
At 12:11 7/10/2002 +0800, Crispin Wellington wrote:
>Hello there stranger!
Hey Crispin :)
>On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 10:48, Chris McCormick wrote:
> >
> > I've searched through the mailing list archives and found one post where
> > someone had the same problem, but it "mysteriously went away".
> > S
Hello there stranger!
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 10:48, Chris McCormick wrote:
>
> I've searched through the mailing list archives and found one post where
> someone had the same problem, but it "mysteriously went away".
> Sometimes If I manually unpack the archives using dpkg-deb --unpack it
> work
Hi!
Firstly, my apologies if this is the wrong forum to post to, but from what
I've seen it seems like it's the correct place.
I am having a strange apt-get upgrade issue on one of our production boxes:
xx:~# apt-get update
[this works fine]
xx:~# apt-get upgrade
Reading Pac
19 matches
Mail list logo
