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

Bug#455974: marked as done (libc6: Upgrade to libc 2.7-3 makes dpkg and a whole lot of programs )

Your message dated Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:28:30 +0100
with message-id <20071214182830.GB28120@artemis.madism.org>
and subject line Bug#455974: libc6: Upgrade to libc 2.7-3 breaking of dpkg
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: libc6
Version: 2.7-3
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks the whole system

After upgrade to libc6 newest version (on a VServer), dpkg refuses to run,
also a lot of init scripts, apache and mysql for example, also ps is broken.

I'll add a strace for a failing dpkg -l in a followup.

Manually wget'ing the etch libc6 and unpacking its data.tar.gz to / resolves
the problem, although this is highly unclean.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.9-023stab043.3-smp (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages libc6 depends on:
ii  libgcc1                       1:4.2.2-3  GCC support library

libc6 recommends no packages.

-- debconf-show failed

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:13:13PM +0000, Marco Schuster wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit schrieb:
> >   Oo I've rarely seen such useless bug reports, could you _AT LEAST_ say
> > what the "error message" is ? how are we supposed to fix a problem if
> > the sole thing we know is "dang we have a problem".
> lol sorry...I was a bit panicking because all my stuff was stored without backups on this machine^^
> > 
> >   Note that if it's another instance of the RHEL 2.6.9 kernel bug, then
> > deal with it, there is nothing we can do about it, see other bugs about
> > that.
> It is...although I am not sure the hoster uses RedHat as host OS, but
> the kernel is a 2.6.9 series.

  Well, the 2.6.9 on a production series is a 99% chances of being the
RHEL one. So it's yet another instance of the same issue: the red hat
2.6.9 is not supported with glibc 2.6.7, not even by redhat.

Attachment: pgp7u3HxEzznE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: