[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#419189: Error on installing libc6 2.5-1 - breaks system



Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> johfel@gmx.de a écrit :
> > Package: libc6
> > Version: 2.5-1
> > Severity: critical
> >
> > If I upgrade to libc6 2.5-1, I'll get this error:
> >
> > Preparing to replace libc6 2.5-1 (using
> > .../archives/libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
> > Setting up libc6 (2.5-1) ...
> > dpkg: relocation error: /lib/tls/libc.so.6: symbol _dl_out_of_memory,
> > version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time
> > reference iconvconfig: relocation error: /lib/tls/libc.so.6: symbol
> > _dl_out_of_memory, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file
> > ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference /usr/bin/perl: relocation error:
> > /lib/tls/libc.so.6: symbol _dl_out_of_memory, version GLIBC_PRIVATE not
> > defined in file ld-linux.so.2 with link time reference
>
> You are trying to replace libc6 version 2.5-1 with the same version.
> This is something authorized that should work. In your case this fails
> because of the presence of /lib/tls/libc.so.6. However this file does
> not belong to libc6 2.5-1, it should have been during the upgrade from
> 2.3.6 to 2.5.
>
> So my question is why did you do before trying to replace libc6 version
> 2.5-1 with the same version?

First I wanted to do a normal upgrade from the last published version of libc6 
to 2.5-1. This failed with a similiar error message as the reported. Now I 
started Knoppix and tried to repair my system (I unpackd libc6_2.5-1_i386.deb 
from snapshot.debian.org - I thought wrongly this was the version before). 
Now I started my debian system and wanted to continue the failed installation 
process and got the reported error message.

There are a lot of files in /lib/tls that belong to libc 2.3.2 
(libdl-2.3.2.so ...). Perhaps they were not deleted by an old upgrade.

dpkg -S returns no packages that files in /lib/tls belong to.

After "mv /lib/tls /lib/tls.old" the system runs normally and the upgrade 
continued without errors.



Reply to: