|
On Monday 18 Sivan 5771 21:16:28 David Baron wrote: > On Monday 18 Sivan 5771 20:18:42 David Baron wrote: > > I was looking at the content of my /lib variations. Very interesting. > > > > The testing one I am using now las libc.so.6 -> libc-2.13.so dated May > > 12. The "sid" one I copied from the segfaulting /lib has libc.so.6 -> > > libc-2.11.2.so dated JUNE! > > > > Something is amiss here, huh? > > All the 2.13 files, symlinks are from May > > All the 2.11.2 files, symlinks are from June (which is when I > > downgraded). Question would be why the sid files point to older > > libraries after upgrading in June? > > > > What library path is used for init which does work? > > There is a libc.so in /usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu of the same June date. > > So to clean up this system, would I: > 1. remove ALL 2.11.2 files in /lib (making sure there are no symlinks to > them). > 2. NOW, re-upgrade to 2.13-7 > > What happened before: > 1. I myself placed the 2.11.2 files from the live CD. > 2. Subsequent upgrade to 2.13-7 LEFT SYMLINKS TO THESE, apparently. OK, I did it. The 2.11.2 files were left around for now, nothing symlinks to them. It was a bit hairy over the original bug for the non-dpkg-owned ld.so... Removing it always left me hosed. Finally replaced the ld-linux one with the i386 target and it took that. I re-upgraded all the X and GCC stuff that I had downgraded. So the problem is in the libc6 installation scripts. The system works, except I still have the iconv problems which I did not have before. So some advice on how to fix this would be most welcome. |