Re: SOLVED: Erk! Something is *really* wrong here!
karl@tower.net.au (Karl Ferguson) wrote on 04.03.97 in <[🔎] 3.0.1.32.19970304094650.006bf6d0@tower.net.au>:
> Ummm... HELP! :-)
Well, I'm no expert, but I'd be willing to look at an actual corrupted
file and see if I can get any idea about what's actually happening in
there.
Can't be so different to analyzing core dumps with nothing more than a hex
dump to find a heap corruption.
So, if you could send us a (preferrably small) example of a file
containing both correct and corrupted entries? Uuencoded, please, no
base64.
MfG Kai
Received: (qmail 30512 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 23:10:09 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-lists--devel@master.debian.org
Received: (qmail 30489 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 23:10:08 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Received: (qmail 30339 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1997 23:07:41 -0000
Received: from server.et-inf.fho-emden.de (192.129.16.1)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 1997 23:07:35 -0000
Received: from zaphod.pi.fho-emden.de (slip.et-inf.fho-emden.de [192.129.16.199]) by server.et-inf.fho-emden.de (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA24831; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 23:57:15 +0100
Received: (from tobias@localhost)
by zaphod.pi.fho-emden.de (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA13233;
Tue, 4 Mar 1997 23:58:57 +0100
Message-ID: <19970304235856.RJ54796@et-inf.fho-emden.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 23:58:56 +0100
From: tobias@et-inf.fho-emden.de (Peter Tobias)
To: schwarz@monet.m.isar.de (Christian Schwarz)
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org (Debian Development)
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: New Debian Manuals
References: <[🔎] 19970301192613.EJ51253@et-inf.fho-emden.de> <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.95q.970302153152.3373B-100000@klee>
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60
Mime-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.95q.970302153152.3373B-100000@klee>; from Christian Schwarz on Mar 2, 1997 15:35:30 +0100
On Mar 2, Christian Schwarz wrote
> > > Here is a lists of Debian Manuals that would be nice to have:
> >
> > Very good idea!
> >
> > > Debian User's Manual
> > > installation, setting up, system maintaince (backups, etc.),
> > > how to build a .deb, FAQ, etc.
> >
> > It should only contain release independant questions and answers.
> > Each release should have its own additional document with questions
> > and answers to the release. This document should contain solutions
> > to problems that Debian users had while installing. For 1.2 it
> > would contain information on how to solve the problem with perl
> > and libdl. This document could simply be a collection from emails
> > which contain solutions to the problems.
>
> Why do you want to seperate "release independent" questions from "release
> dependend" questions?
Release independent questions are probably questions like "What is
/etc/alternatives?" or "Why does libc contain kernel headers?". These
questions won't change and are mostly questions describing the Debian
way of doing it. The release dependent things are more likely to change
and are often results of bugs in packages.
> You are probably referring to a chapter "Release Notes", which we should
> definitely include in the manual. However I think that the manual should
> also contain more general documentation about a Debian system, as a
> description of /etc/init.d/* or setting up X, for example.
IMHO these "Release Notes" (release dependant questions) should be
a separate document. If you want to install a Debian system you will
probably not read a full manual first. A (hopefully) small "Release
Notes" document will make it easier for the users to install Debian.
Thanks,
Peter
--
Peter Tobias EMail:
Fachhochschule Ostfriesland tobias@et-inf.fho-emden.de
Fachbereich Elektrotechnik und Informatik tobias@debian.org
Constantiaplatz 4, 26723 Emden, Germany tobias@linux.de
Received: (qmail 30662 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 23:10:16 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-lists--user@master.debian.org
Received: (qmail 30652 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 23:10:15 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Received: (qmail 30568 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1997 23:10:11 -0000
Received: from siva.taz.net.au (cas@203.16.167.2)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 1997 23:10:07 -0000
Received: from localhost (cas@localhost)
by siva.taz.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA29402;
Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:47:34 +1100
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:47:34 +1100 (EST)
From: Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
To: Stan Brown <stanb@netcom.com>
cc: Debian User List <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: GCC broken after upgrade :-(
In-Reply-To: <199703040023.TAA06705@netcom15.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95q.970305094342.815U-100000@siva.taz.net.au>
X-No-Junk-Mail: Do not send me junk mail under any circumstances
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Stan Brown wrote:
> I just upgraded from a Iconnect disk dated 02-Feb-97. When I tried to
> build a new kernel I got:
>
> gcc: installation problem, cannot exec `cc1': No such file or directory
> cpp: output pipe has been closed
> make: *** [init/main.o] Error 1
>
> So i went to the CD and did a dpkg -i of gcc_2.7.2.1-4.deb. Still no
> joy.
>
> What;s going on here?
cpp is a separate package (it's needed for a few other packages which
use it as a pre-processer for their config files).
gcc depends on cpp, so i'm surprised that dpkg let you install gcc
without installing cpp -- maybe you did 'dpkg -i --force-depends ...' ??
I have these installed on my system. They work fine:
$ dpkg -l gcc cpp
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-===============-==============-============================================
ii gcc 2.7.2.1-5 The GNU C compiler (ELF version).
ii cpp 2.7.2.1-5 The GNU C preprocessor (ELF version).
$ dpkg -s cpp
Package: cpp
Status: install ok installed
Priority: standard
Section: interpreters
Installed-Size: 137
Maintainer: Galen Hazelwood <galenh@micron.net>
Source: gcc
Version: 2.7.2.1-5
Depends: libc5 (>= 5.4.0-0)
Description: The GNU C preprocessor (ELF version).
The GNU C preprocessor is required by some utilities that use it for
macro substitutions. This package has been separated from gcc for
the benefit of those who require the preprocessor but not the
compiler.
$ dpkg -s gcc
Package: gcc
Status: install ok installed
Priority: standard
Section: devel
Installed-Size: 4973
Maintainer: Galen Hazelwood <galenh@micron.net>
Version: 2.7.2.1-5
Depends: libc5 (>= 5.4.0-0), cpp (>= 2.7.2.1-2), binutils (>= 2.6-2)
Recommends: libc-dev
Suggests: libpthread0-dev
Description: The GNU C compiler (ELF version).
The GNU C compiler is a fairly portable optimizing compiler that
supports multiple languages. It includes (runtime) support for C,
C++, and Objective C (support for Objective C was donated by NeXT).
craig
Received: (qmail 31591 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 23:14:30 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-lists--user@master.debian.org
Received: (qmail 31583 invoked by uid 888); 4 Mar 1997 23:14:29 -0000
Delivered-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Received: (qmail 31558 invoked from network); 4 Mar 1997 23:14:23 -0000
Received: from siva.taz.net.au (cas@203.16.167.2)
by master.debian.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 1997 23:14:20 -0000
Received: from localhost (cas@localhost)
by siva.taz.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA29547;
Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:05:45 +1100
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:05:44 +1100 (EST)
From: Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>
To: Lawrence Chim <ychim@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au>
cc: debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: is modules_2.1.23-1.deb corrupted?
In-Reply-To: <3318DDCF.7B24039A@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95q.970305095957.815Z-100000@siva.taz.net.au>
X-No-Junk-Mail: Do not send me junk mail under any circumstances
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Lawrence Chim wrote:
> I found that the ismod, modprobe, rmmod.... are missing in the
> modules deb. Are they moved to a new package, or the deb is
> corrupted?
'modules' is being replaced by 'modutils'.
Unfortunately, modutils is NOT available yet. I ran into this problem
myself and had to downgrade to modules 2.1.8-1.
This is a serious problem and needs to be fixed ASAP (but it seems
like no NEW packages are being moved from incoming to unstable at the
moment...only new versions of existing packages)
so,
1. use dpkg to install modules 2.1.8-1
2. use dselect to put modules on HOLD until modutils appears in the
archive. (i'm not sure if there's a dpkg command line option to
put a package on hold. it would be useful if there was. maybe i
should RTFM again :-)
FYI, here's the info on the modules 2.1.23-1 package.
$ dpkg -I /debian/bo/binary-i386/base/modules_2.1.23-1.deb
new debian package, version 2.0.
size 3456 bytes: control archive= 1348 bytes.
72 bytes, 4 lines conffiles
403 bytes, 10 lines control
840 bytes, 33 lines * postinst #!/bin/sh
151 bytes, 10 lines * postrm #!/bin/sh
1041 bytes, 35 lines * preinst #!/bin/sh
199 bytes, 10 lines * prerm #!/bin/sh
Package: modules
Version: 2.1.23-1
Architecture: i386
Depends: modutils
Installed-Size: 20
Maintainer: Wichert Akkerman <wakkerma@wi.leidenuniv.nl>
Description: Dummy package for upgrade to modutils
This packaged is needed when you are upgrading from the modules
package to the newer modutils package. Feel free to ignore this
if you are installing a new system are haven't got modules installed.
craig
Reply to: