Re: sanity check (ldd not in ld.so 1.9.10-1?)
On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 12:45:18PM +0200, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> >> "AM" == Anderson MacKay <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> AM> I recently did an apt-get upgrade of my slink laptop, and a new
> AM> version of the ldso package was installed (version 1.9.10-1).
> You are not the first one bitten by this. ldd is now part of the libc6
> 2.1 package. If you don't want to install it yet (I can understand
> this well), revert to ldso from slink.
Actually, that's what I did. Here's the only active line from my apt
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
When I reinstalled the ldso package, I specifically went to
/debian/dists/slink/main/binary-i386/base and grabbed the ldso binary
package from there. I noticed that my other machine (which is running
the bleeding edge, and relatively well ... thanks all!) had ldd in the
libc6 package -- fortunately a friend of mine has a slink machine that I
could check to see where /usr/bin/ldd was. Finding it was still in the
ldso package as I remembered ... I was surprised that dpkg says "yep,
you've got the latest ldso package" and there's no /usr/bin/ldd. Again,
it's the *slink* ldso package that I installed (twice), and I didn't get
/usr/bin/ldd back until I rebuild the ldso package myself. I know, it's
really weird ... I sent my original email here to see if there was some
confirmation of this, or whether it was just me operating in some
bad-dpkg-karma zone. :)
So ... any developers running a completely slink machine, and have ldso
version 1.9.10-1 installed? If you do, could you just check for my
sanity that /usr/bin/ldd is still there? On the other hand, I don't
remember dpkg overriding anything when it installed the 10 or 15 upgraded
packages it did last week, but maybe some other package got rid of ldd.
After all, apt seems to call dpkg with some of the --force options
enabled, and I don't have a log of that session, unfortunately.
Anderson MacKay <email@example.com>