On 18/10/2022 11:59, Guillaume Lefranc wrote:
> Yes.
> The upgrade was automatically done by unattended-upgrades, but we have
> libc6 blacklisted due to issues we encountered previously
What kind of issues? Are they still relevant? Is there a bug report we could
look at?
In this case, I suggest you also block/pin libc-bin to the same version as libc6.
Helmut, libc-bin could have a depends on libcX (>= ${binary:Version}), although
this is such a corner case that I don't think an update is necessary just for this.
Cheers,
Emilio
>
> Unattended-Upgrade::Origins-Pattern {
> "origin=Debian,codename=${distro_codename},label=Debian-Security";
> };
>
> Unattended-Upgrade::Package-Blacklist {
> "libc6";
> };
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 at 09:23, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 18/10/2022 09:13, Guillaume Lefranc wrote:
>>> Package: libc-bin
>>> Version: 2.28-10+deb10u2
>>> Severity: normal
>>>
>>> Dear Maintainer,
>>>
>>> after upgrading libc-bin from 2.28-10+deb10u1 to 2.28-10+deb10u2, the
>> following error appeared after running iconv the following way:
>>>
>>> iconv -cs -f 'UTF-8' -t 'UTF-8' /tmp/510754/import/import.1
>>>
>>> iconv: relocation error: iconv: symbol __gconv_create_spec version
>> GLIBC_PRIVATE not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference
>>
>> Any particular reason you upgraded libc-bin but not libc6?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Emilio
>>
>
>