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

Re: Bug#740068: debian-installer: segfaults when built against testing



Hi,

Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net> (2014-02-25):
> Yes, we get this bug happening regularly because the binaries on the
> image went through the library reduction process with a given libc (here
> 2.18), and later a different version of the libc is unpacked over it
> (here 2.17). Therefore some symbols are missings, causing the segfault.
> In addition I think there are also some version mismatches between libnss-*
> and libc6 when the old one is getting unpacked.

alright, thanks.

> > This rings some bells:
> > | eglibc (2.18-2) unstable; urgency=medium
> > |
> > |   [ Aurelien Jarno ]
> > |   * any/local-ldconfig-ignore-ld.so.diff: new patch to ignore the dynamic
> > |     linker in ldconfig.  Closes: #699206, #707185, #727786, #736097,
> > |     #739734, #739758.
> 
> No it's not related to that. This bug is when you have multiple libc of
> the same architecture on a system (e.g. libc6:amd64 and
> libc6-amd64:i386, or libc6:i386 and libc-i386:amd64)

OK, thanks.

> > eglibc maintainers, can you please suggest further directions for me to
> > look into? Initial d-i bug report with busybox sh segfaults:
> >   http://bugs.debian.org/740068
> > 
> 
> You just have to ensure that the libc used for building the image is the
> same as the one used later in d-i.

Said slightly otherwise, this issue should go away as soon as eglibc
hits testing. I guess we can live with a few days of breakages, if that
only happens when a new major eglibc release appears in unstable, and
lasts until it's ready to migrate to testing. If that's correct, it
would be nice to announce new major releases to -boot@ a few days before
it gets uploaded. Or I could monitor that along with linux kernel
versions… Will think about it.

Thanks again for the explanations; I'll keep this bug report open as a
placeholder for the time being.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: