On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:09:14PM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:37:51PM -0500, Zed Pobre wrote: > > > Attempting to su to root (even from root) with 2.3.1-1 on one of my > > test systems caused an immediate segfault. Also, attempting to ssh > > The ssh problem is probably the known bug that anything using NSS > needs to be restarted after the libc upgrade. The next package will > warn about that. > > I've been using test versions of the 2.3 package for almost a month > now and haven't seen any su segfaults. Please investigate that > further. The problem was that root uses zsh-static as a shell, and static libraries got broken by this (a bug has already been filed on zsh-static about this). Should it be the responsibility of all packages containing statically compiled binaries to declare an explicit dependency on the version of libc used to compile them? This *really badly damaged* a few systems using static binaries out here when I forgot that I'd manually moved their libcs out of stable and into testing some time back and never put them on hold for a mass upgrade of stable/security packages... (yeah, yeah, my fault for not paying attention, but this wasn't the kind of thing I expected to get hit by). I also have to add that I find this to be completely contradictory behaviour to how I expect static binaries to behave. I compile things statically when I want them to work properly no matter what version of various libraries are on the system. If they're not going to work correctly without a particular version of libc6, might as well stop providing libc.a and force everything to acknowledge the fact that they're tied to the system libc. Okay, the above is inflammatory, and I've debated deleting it with myself for a little while, but I'm going to let it stand, because some upgrade path is going to have to be provided by the next release -- and certainly neither this libc6, nor anything compiled against it, should go into testing until some mechanism is found to prevent someone running woody with a statically linked shell from apt-get installing something compiled against the new libc6 and finding himself unable to log in afterwards to fix all the things that suddenly broke. Possibly this could be handled by putting new versions of busybox-static, sash, zsh-static, kiss, and e2fsck-static (do we ship any other statically linked admin tools?) into woody that conflict the newer version of libc6, and adding to policy that future packages that ship statically compiled binaries have to conflict with any libc6 with a larger minor number than the one used to compile them, but I truly think there should be a better answer. Is there no way to get the code of whatever is breaking to be included in a statically compiled binary, so this doesn't happen again in the future? > learning from failures is nice in theory... > but in practice, it sucks :) > - Wolfgang Jaehrling Indeed. -- Zed Pobre <email@example.com> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <firstname.lastname@example.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
Description: PGP signature