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

Bug#633406: marked as done (dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library libc.so.6)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Jul 2011 22:02:57 +0200
with message-id <20110710200257.GA30294@rivendell.home.ouaza.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#633406: dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library libc.so.6
has caused the Debian Bug report #633406,
regarding dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library libc.so.6
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
633406: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=633406
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.16.0.3
Severity: normal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

For some reason I have recently been unable to build packages linked
against libc.so.6 or libpthread.so.0 because dpkg-shlibdeps keeps
failing with the following errors:

...
   dh_shlibdeps
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library libpthread.so.0 needed by debian/notmuch/usr/bin/notmuch (ELF format: 'elf64-x86-64'; RPATH: '').
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: couldn't find library libc.so.6 needed by debian/notmuch/usr/bin/notmuch (ELF format: 'elf64-x86-64'; RPATH: '').
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: Cannot continue due to the errors listed above.
Note: libraries are not searched in other binary packages that do not have any shlibs or symbols file.
To help dpkg-shlibdeps find private libraries, you might need to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
dh_shlibdeps: dpkg-shlibdeps -Tdebian/notmuch.substvars debian/notmuch/usr/bin/notmuch returned exit code 2
make: *** [binary] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2
debuild: fatal error at line 1340:
dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc -i -I failed
gbp:error: debuild -i -I returned 29
gbp:error: Couldn't run 'debuild -i -I -us -uc'

This is just one example, but I have other packages that are failing
to build with the same error.  This has been going on for about a
month now, after just starting at some point, presumably due to some
upgrade that I didn't pay attention too.

This may very well be a bug in libc6 or libc6-i386 (both of which are
installed on my system) since both libpthread.so.0 and libc.so.6 are
provided by those packages (although in different paths).

I really don't know what's going on here, and nor does anyone else
I've ask.  Please advise.  Any debugging help would be much
appreciated.

Thanks so much for the help.

jamie.

- -- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (600, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (101, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.38-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on:
ii  base-files            6.3                Debian base system miscellaneous f
ii  binutils              2.21.52.20110606-2 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  bzip2                 1.0.5-6            high-quality block-sorting file co
ii  libdpkg-perl          1.16.0.3           Dpkg perl modules
ii  make                  3.81-8.1           An utility for Directing compilati
ii  patch                 2.6.1-2            Apply a diff file to an original
ii  xz-utils              5.0.0-2            XZ-format compression utilities

Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends:
ii  build-essential               11.5       Informational list of build-essent
ii  fakeroot                      1.16-1     tool for simulating superuser priv
ii  gcc [c-compiler]              4:4.6.0-6  GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.4 [c-compiler]          4.4.6-6    GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.5 [c-compiler]          4.5.3-3    The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.6 [c-compiler]          4.6.1-1    GNU C compiler
ii  gnupg                         1.4.11-3   GNU privacy guard - a free PGP rep
ii  gpgv                          1.4.11-3   GNU privacy guard - signature veri
ii  libalgorithm-merge-perl       0.08-2     Perl module for three-way merge of

Versions of packages dpkg-dev suggests:
ii  debian-keyring                2011.03.03 GnuPG keys of Debian Developers

- -- no debconf information

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOGOQZAAoJEO00zqvie6q8i7oQALmOTBV7GMnfXsXv5bvUarWv
nityzrMdghA5WJunIfgzWeKWN3Serbq8pqWBDOJSTTI9g9LPJOM2cV11q/BK7a/Q
KaBubBi5iFfgXcTjN6l5eDZjBM2E9o0LKrMI+QW5UwG+qdoE/ZzN814GWBoLgu2m
EnpNOzsS+2l9ykqTR3uL85S0RyqSKhWV8cMXpOJIygCohIwZeUy5w9oLBWdw6lLs
II31rV5/CctKAhicXbq3vnm5/li8F4sfk5J1tv0vKu+dHdbIgKSv1GnOvkughkkr
1trlB0E9P4lWtpeXQ1Q9+KkMGB6BdS2h4vu+7/iV7SbArSTYD690zovoq6D295Xh
Rwya9L8DKnDKge+UC67Z2P+QME3fOpN799lniJIM3JKbz7VJzUSUMH6tABGf299z
r0RCB1iFHJYZ0n9pbOhzC8DMrRXFwCSAjsEGcSPEUcY2ecbPa06bNx1cGFJv9eq5
VXfdSZ8zag96+G6PfjSLvgm5crPgzuNazCTRr7wYbKlgon9DHy89YRKCCPAEguT4
l7T5h14/LKeTkqG2462mjUWN9G+kac1vX92lFDAlXXh3ve8IyfS7pzUlQqBNBF4O
+x2OjZJIclPpE3GL7CcV3zK+PrhppQZ5AOBlYb85tVDY8FVCYEuG06ykx1JXCMor
VEWzV/R/fkWGhauFX3LX
=/v+u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> That's true.  But an upgrade path somewhere or some documentation
> could be broken.  Since it is not clear to me that this bug has been
> fixed in Debian, I'm reopening it (after all, "it's definitely not a
> bug in dpkg" is not a reason to close a bug against the Debian OS).

Please, unless you have some new input that proves that the upgrade path
is broken and that this is not a local problem, respect my decision to
close the bug. I could have reassigned it, but I did not because I
believe that there's nothing to find here.

And even if there's something, it's not going to show up in a
squeeeze->wheezy upgrade, it would be more likely a problem with an
upgrade to a broken version that did not exist for very long.

> Jamie, I'm tagging the bug moreinfo because I'm having trouble
> imagining how this system came to be the way it is and that would be
> important information for solving it.  Do you know when this started
> happening?  Was there an upgrade or something soon before?  Are there
> other libc-related symptoms showing up?  What are the versions of all
> installed 'libc*' packages, and have you ever installed a version of
> libc from another architecture or outside the packaging system?
> Please feel free to send relevant logs to help with investigating.

Feel free to continue this with Jamie and to open a bug if you find
something, but in the mean time there's nothing for libc6 maintainers
to look at so this bug can be kept closed.

maintainers of big packages like libc6 (or dpkg) have plenty of real bugs
to deal with already, there's no need to distract them with bugs that are
not reproducible.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
                      ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)

--- End Message ---
Reply to: