Bug#779620: lldb-3.7: CommandLine Error: Option 'enable-objc-arc-opts' registered more than once!
Package: lldb-3.7 Version: 1:3.7~svn230892-1 Severity: grave I tried the new version to see whether the arch detection has been fixed; it may have been, but the new version is still unusable: $ lldb-3.7 /bin/ls : CommandLine Error: Option 'enable-objc-arc-opts' registered more than once! LLVM ERROR: inconsistency in registered CommandLine options $ lldb-3.7 : CommandLine Error: Option 'enable-objc-arc-opts' registered more than once! LLVM ERROR: inconsistency in registered CommandLine options -- System Information: Debian Release: 8.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.17-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_AT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_AT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages lldb-3.7 depends on: ii libc62.19-13 ii libedit2 3.1-20140620-2 ii libffi6 3.1-2+b2 ii libgcc1 1:5-20150205-1 ii liblldb-3.7 1:3.7~svn230892-1 ii libllvm3.7 1:3.7~svn230892-1 ii libstdc++6 4.9.2-10 ii libtinfo55.9+20140913-1+b1 ii llvm-3.7-dev 1:3.7~svn227076-1 ii python 2.7.8-3 ii python-lldb-3.7 1:3.7~svn227076-1 ii zlib1g 1:1.2.8.dfsg-2+b1 lldb-3.7 recommends no packages. lldb-3.7 suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- : Ing. Philipp Marek : LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability : DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com : DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#613484: /usr/bin/ecl is not installed
Package: ecl Version: 13.5.1+dfsg2-4 Followup-For: Bug #613484 This is still an issue: $ apt-get install --reinstall ecl Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 reinstalled, 0 to remove and 3 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B/3182 kB of archives. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. (Reading database ... 404956 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to unpack .../ecl_13.5.1+dfsg2-4_amd64.deb ... Unpacking ecl (13.5.1+dfsg2-4) over (13.5.1+dfsg2-4) ... Processing triggers for man-db (2.6.6-1) ... Setting up ecl (13.5.1+dfsg2-4) ... Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.17-97) ... $ ls -la /usr/bin/ecl ls: cannot access /usr/bin/ecl: No such file or directory -- System Information: Debian Release: jessie/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.11-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_AT.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_AT.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages ecl depends on: ii gcc 4:4.8.2-2 ii libc62.17-97 ii libffi6 3.0.13-12 ii libgc-dev1:7.2d-6 ii libgc1c2 1:7.2d-6 ii libgmp10 2:5.1.3+dfsg-1 ii libgmp3-dev 2:5.1.3+dfsg-1 ii libncurses5-dev 5.9+20140118-1 ecl recommends no packages. Versions of packages ecl suggests: pn ecl-doc pn slime -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25
On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:49, Eric Blake wrote: > Follow-up Comment #4, bug #14619 (project findutils): > > I don't think the original poster has discovered any bugs, rather just > their misunderstanding of the (admittedly confusing) POSIX requirements. I just read the man-page, where it says: -perm mode File's permission bits are exactly mode (octal or symbolic). Since an exact match is required, if you want to use this form for symbolic modes, you may have to specify a rather complex mode string. For example '-perm g=w' will only match files which have mode 0020 (that is, ones for which group write per- mission is the only permission set). It is more likely that you will want to use the '+' or '-' forms, for example '-perm -g=w', which matches any file with group write permission. See the EXAMPLES section for some illustrative examples. -perm -mode All of the permission bits mode are set for the file. Symbolic modes are accepted in this form, and this is usually the way in which would want to use them. You must specify 'u', 'g' or 'o' if you use a symbolic mode.See the EXAMPLES section for some illustra- tive examples. -perm +mode Any of the permission bits mode are set for the file. Symbolic modes are accepted in this form. You must specify 'u', 'g' or 'o' if you use a symbolic mode. See the EXAMPLES section for some illustrative exam- ples. And at least for my limited (non-native) understanding of english this ain't the same as the (not clearly written) POSIX-standard. So maybe it's not find, but it's man-page which should be changed? Perhaps having a few examples and a better explanation? Thank you! Regards, Phil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 01:08, James Youngman wrote: > Follow-up Comment #2, bug #14619 (project findutils): > > Does -perm /... do what you expected -perm +... to do? I did a short test, and I believe that find -type f -perm /+x gives me what I used to get with find -type f -perm +x Although I didn't test all various combinations - there may be other breakage. But it's much better than find -type f -perm +x where I get no results; I currently use find -type f -perm +0111 which works as expected. Regards, Phil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
