Re: Bug#324550: Needs dependency fix [linux-image-2.6.12-1-686: install fails with "cannot stat `(0xffffe000)': No such file or directory"]
- To: Theodore Ts'o <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: GOTO Masanori <email@example.com>, Tony Godshall <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#324550: Needs dependency fix [linux-image-2.6.12-1-686: install fails with "cannot stat `(0xffffe000)': No such file or directory"]
- From: Horms <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:46:34 +0900
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20050824034633.GS1170@verge.net.au>
- Mail-followup-to: Theodore Ts'o <firstname.lastname@example.org>, GOTO Masanori <email@example.com>, Tony Godshall <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20050823121758.GC8800@thunk.org>
- References: <20050822234714.GA31692@private> <20050823014853.GG2390@verge.net.au> <20050823033137.GA27657@thunk.org> <[🔎] 20050823035412.GU2390@verge.net.au> <[🔎] email@example.com> <[🔎] 20050823104923.GE31088@verge.net.au> <[🔎] 20050823121758.GC8800@thunk.org>
reassign 324550 libc6
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:17:58AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 07:49:23PM +0900, Simon Horman [Horms] wrote:
> > long time no see. It seems that the problem is indeed fixed if you get
> > the sarge (or later) versions of e2fsprogs and glibc. However, some
> > people don't have that, and its causing some breakage for those people.
> > Would it be possible for you to add the conflicts that Ted suggested to
> > the next glibc release. This would seem like a nice way to make the
> > problem go away for everyone.
> Hmm, OK. This is how I understand the problem.
> If you are using the sarge versions of e2fsprogs (1.37-2sarge1) and
> libc6 (2.3.2), you're fine.
> If you are using the latest unstable versions of e2fsprogs (1.38-1 or
> the just uploaded 1.38-2) and glibc (2.3.5) you're also fine.
> The problem comes if you are using the sarge (1.37-2sarge1) version of
> e2fsprogs (or any version of e2fsprogs before 1.37-5) and an unstable
> version of glibc which is newer than 2.3.4, due to the change in what
> ldd outputs (the linux-gate.so entry).
> Since we can't retroactively fix e2fsprogs (although I suppose I am
> trying to get an updated 1.37-2sarge2 into the next stable update, I
> could try to convince the release managers to let me get an additional
> conflicts added, or to get the linux-gate.so filtering added to
> -2sarge2), the only way to fix this is to add the conflicts line to
> On the other hand, do we have to support these kinds of wierd
> cross-release dependencies? I have in the past updated to an unstable
> version of libc on a stable system, for various sordid reasons, but I
> always considered it something hazardous that might break things. I
> don't know that supporting a mix-and-match between stable and unstable
> is something we have to do, and if it means adding extra hair into
> libc6's dependencies that in practice may not get removed for a long
> time, is it worth doing?
I'm not sure that kind of mixing and matching is really
supported, in the sense that if a new version exists, the
recommended solution is always to upgrade.
I think your idea is worthwile, as people do mix and match,
but I'll also understand if Goto-san doesn't wan the
extra cruft in control - it will become irrelevant over time.
I'm going to reassign this bug to libc6, Goto-san can close
it from there in whatever way he sees fit.