Re: ldso part 2
On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 11:49:13AM -0700, Greg Wiley wrote:
> As suggested by orphaner, I gave removing
> ldso a shot on a non-critical testing machine.
> No adverse affects as far as I could tell.
> Today's upgrade put ldso right back on.
> Now orphaner says, again, that nothing
> depends on ldso and that it may be safely
> Is this a bug? If so, against what package
> should it be filed?
I'm not sure ... However, the background is that ldso used to be
essential on potato, but now libc6 includes its own versions of the code
in ldso and so it's no longer needed. libc5 still needs ldso, but if you
had that installed then orphaner wouldn't have suggested removing it in
the first place.
Try 'dpkg -p ldso' and 'apt-cache show ldso'. Do either of those display
an 'Essential: yes' field? What tool are you using to upgrade?
I hope this comes a little closer to working out what's going on.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]