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

Re: libpango update broke iceape synaptic and more

On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 21:55:21 -0500, Don wrote:
> Steve Kemp wrote:
>> On Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:54:23 -0500, Don wrote:
>>> I am using "sid" and yesterday my update/upgrade broke iceape, synaptic, 
>>> and some others.  I've had problems with libpango before, but this one 
>>> has me stumped.  I don't see anyone else having this problem, so I must 
>>> conclude something is wrong with my installation.


> >   Running ldd against the named library I see this:
> >
> >           libglib-2.0.so.0 => /lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x00002ac8b5c58000)
> >
> >   That is *incorrect*,  I have the /lib/libglib* file upon my system
> >  and no idea where it came from!  The correct files are located in 
> > /usr/lib/ - archiving /lib/libglib* made the problem go away.


> Nice find Steve, but I have not quite the exact same problem.  Even though 
> I'm fairly Deb-Linux savvy, I'm lost in this area.  I did, however do some 
> looking and ran the nm and ldd.  nm came up with same undefined. ldd came 
> up with following (much edited out):
> kali:~# ldd -v /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0
>    libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0xb7e7c000)
> kali:~# ldd -v /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0
>    libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0xb7da4000)
> Hmmm ... the "/usr/local" looks strange to me compared to what you found 
> and where you said it should be.  Not knowing any better, I used "updatedb" 
> and then "locate libglib" and got the following (edited):


> I see (I think) that it is apparently pointing to the /usr/local/lib copy 
> which is version 1200.2 instead of the /usr/lib copy which has version 
> 1400.0     Am I correct in this thinking?
> If this is the problem, how do I fix it?  (I know I could copy the later 
> version from /usr/lib into /usr/local/lib but that seems a very klugey and 
> unwise fix.)
> Anyone else feel free to jump in here -  I miss my computer and hate the 
> one I'm using, forgive me if this message did not thread properly.  And if 
> anyone wants to try educating me on why the "local" is needed, I'm 
> listening.

This is from NEWS.Debian.gz of the latest libc6 package:


glibc (2.6.1-2) unstable; urgency=low

 Starting with version 2.6.1, the glibc ships /etc/ld.so.conf.d/libc.conf that
 enforces /usr/local/lib to take precedence over /usr/lib. This is the
 intended behaviour (it works like the $PATH where /usr/local/bin takes
 precedence over /usr/bin).

 To revert that (and it is highely unrecommended) you can add /usr/lib front
 in /etc/ld.so.conf.d/libc.conf. (see bug#440394).


The apt-listchanges packages is extremely handy to make sure you are not
missing such important announcements. It integrates into apt(itude) and
shows you all the NEWS (and optionally the complete changelogs) of the
packages that you are about to install. It also allows you to cancel the
installation in the event of bad NEWS.

Regards,            | http://users.icfo.es/Florian.Kulzer
          Florian   |

Reply to: