On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:14:24PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 04:39:06PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > > > Could you please provide details about the problem of having the > > > symlinks in glibc? > > > > > > Is it that glibc has a versioned Replaces: base-files and dpkg removes > > > the symlink in base-files before installing the one from glibc, > > > creating a big window during which /lib64 does not exist at all? > > > > glibc (libc6) does not replace base-files. Why should it? > > Because otherwise the upgrade from an already running amd64 system > (which has a modified base-files containing the symlink) would result > in dpkg complaining about a file conflict. A Replaces field would > allow dpkg to move the ownership of the symlink from base-files to > libc in a clean way. However, it there is a time window during which > /lib64 does not exist at all it will not work that way.
I've patched the latest glibc to to provide the symlink. This is what I get: apt-get upgrade Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done The following packages will be upgraded: libc6 libc6-dev 2 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/8813kB of archives. After unpacking 135kB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] y (Reading database ... 10369 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using .../libc6-dev_2.3.2.ds1-19_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libc6-dev ... Preparing to replace libc6 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using ..././libc6_2.3.2.ds1-19_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libc6 ... dpkg - warning, overriding problem because --force enabled: trying to overwrite `/lib64', which is also in package base-files Setting up libc6 (2.3.2.ds1-19) ... Current default timezone: 'Europe/Brussels'. Local time is now: Sun Dec 5 23:19:17 CET 2004. Universal Time is now: Sun Dec 5 22:19:17 UTC 2004. Run 'tzconfig' if you wish to change it. Setting up libc6-dev (2.3.2.ds1-19) ... (Note that is a patched 2.3.2.ds1-19, didn't change the version number yet.) At that point the /lib64 symlink it owned by the libc6 package. Now I just need to be sure how to package this properly so nobody has problems updating libc6 and base-files at the same time. Any hint welcome. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]