Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
Jeff Bailey said: > It had never occured to me to put the debug path in the cache file. I'm > not sure how common of a scenario that is, or it should've bitten > someone before. I suppose so. I don't really know why I put it there in the first place. :-) I was debugging a program and thought that was the easiest way to use the dbg libs. -- Best regards, Per -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 12:35, Jeff Bailey wrote: > Do you think making libc6-dbg pre-depend instead of depend'ing on > libc6 (= 2.3.1-1) would work? Should --- though, according to policy, libc6 will only be unpacked. But since it is Essential: yes, it should work that way. What a fun bug. Hope you have sash installed ;-) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: glibc 2.3.1-1 needs restarting network services
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 02:38:57AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > After upgrading libc package, then please stop-and-start network > > services/daemons, because name service switch is changed in glibc 2.3. > > Uh, you're going to fix this in a new upload, right? (ie, automate > restarting other programs just as has happened with previous upgrades > where this was necessary) The is the new unstable. We don't care about upgrades. Didn't you get the memo? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 12:35, Jeff Bailey wrote: > Do you think making libc6-dbg pre-depend instead of depend'ing on > libc6 (= 2.3.1-1) would work? Should --- though, according to policy, libc6 will only be unpacked. But since it is Essential: yes, it should work that way. What a fun bug. Hope you have sash installed ;-) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 22:38, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Incidentally, you should also broaden the list of relevant services; I > would suggest adding kdm (and other display managers?), ssh-krb5, and > apache2 at the least. Don't add display managers. At least with gdm I'm pretty sure that will kill X sessions... [Not willing to test this, of course] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#165412: libc6: SIGRTMIN defined as -1 with libc 2.3.1, as 32 with 2.2.5
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:28:25PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> severity 165412 critical
> thanks
>
> Hi,
>
> Oskar Liljeblad wrote:
> > SIGRTMIN is defined glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/unix/sysv/{arch}/bits/signum.h
> > as:
> >
> > #define SIGRTMIN(__libc_current_sigrtmin ())
>
> This is the problem. As I understand, __libc_* is now hidden and
> unaccessible.
>
> So the function is unaccessible...
>
> It seems that these problems appear in many programs in the
> distribution, maybe with other functions too
Eh? __libc_* isn't hidden, only particular functions. That's not the
problem.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Re: glibc-snapshot package
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:51:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > In short, I doubt we will get sufficient testing on problematic > > arches unless we take the leap and push into sid. However I would > > make sure that the findsyms perl script I wrote has been run on the > > debian sid package archives for any arches which we have to create a > > libgcc-compat for to make sure our list of libgcc symbols is complete. > > I'm not sure that is the case for mips yet for example. > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200209/msg00164.html > > I want to know mips has this problem (buildd tell us the answer, I hope). > If so, I agree we should fix as you said. I'm investigating this. I have a libgcc-comat patch for mips ( http://honk.physik.uni-konstanz.de/linux-mips/glibc/patches/experimental/libgcc-compat-mips.dpatch ) and am currently scanning the unstable distribution. The tests in my small chroot showed that a libgcc-compat for mips might not be necessary, but only the complete scan will show. Regards, -- Guido
Bug#165417: libc6: ldd depends on file for files with exec bit off
Package: libc6 Version: 2.2.5-14.3 Severity: normal The ldd script fails on non-executable files (such as most libraries) if the file package is not installed. -- System Information Debian Release: testing/unstable Kernel Version: Linux gondolin 2.4.18-686-smp #1 SMP Sun Apr 14 12:07:19 EST 2002 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux Versions of the packages libc6 depends on: ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-5The Berkeley database routines [glibc 2.0/2.
Bug#165412: libc6: SIGRTMIN defined as -1 with libc 2.3.1, as 32 with 2.2.5
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:28:25PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> severity 165412 critical
> thanks
>
> Hi,
>
> Oskar Liljeblad wrote:
> > SIGRTMIN is defined glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/unix/sysv/{arch}/bits/signum.h
> > as:
> >
> > #define SIGRTMIN(__libc_current_sigrtmin ())
>
> This is the problem. As I understand, __libc_* is now hidden and
> unaccessible.
>
> So the function is unaccessible...
>
> It seems that these problems appear in many programs in the
> distribution, maybe with other functions too
Eh? __libc_* isn't hidden, only particular functions. That's not the
problem.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#165412: libc6: SIGRTMIN defined as -1 with libc 2.3.1, as 32 with 2.2.5
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 165412 critical Bug#165412: libc6: SIGRTMIN defined as -1 with libc 2.3.1, as 32 with 2.2.5 Severity set to `critical'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Bug#165412: libc6: SIGRTMIN defined as -1 with libc 2.3.1, as 32 with 2.2.5
severity 165412 critical
thanks
Hi,
Oskar Liljeblad wrote:
> SIGRTMIN is defined glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/unix/sysv/{arch}/bits/signum.h
> as:
>
> #define SIGRTMIN(__libc_current_sigrtmin ())
This is the problem. As I understand, __libc_* is now hidden and
unaccessible.
So the function is unaccessible...
It seems that these problems appear in many programs in the
distribution, maybe with other functions too
Regards,
Rene
--
.''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
`- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Bug#165412: libc6: SIGRTMIN defined as -1 with libc 2.3.1, as 32 with 2.2.5
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.1-1
Severity: important
(I consider this important as it breaks all programs using this
signal entirely. I wouldn't blame you for lowing the severity
though...)
Ok, SIGRTMIN evaluates to -1 with libc6 2.3.1. With libc6 2.2.5
it would evaluate to 32.
SIGRTMIN is defined glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/unix/sysv/{arch}/bits/signum.h
as:
#define SIGRTMIN(__libc_current_sigrtmin ())
The function __libc_current_sigrtmin is defined in
glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/generic/allocrtsig.c like this:
int
__libc_current_sigrtmin (void)
{
#ifdef __SIGRTMIN
if (!initialized)
init ();
#endif
return current_rtmin;
}
__SIGRTMIN is also defined in the signum.h file specified above,
like this:
#define __SIGRTMIN 32
The init function is defined like this:
static void
init (void)
{
if (!kernel_has_rtsig ())
{
current_rtmin = -1;
current_rtmax = -1;
}
else
{
current_rtmin = __SIGRTMIN;
current_rtmax = __SIGRTMAX;
}
initialized = 1;
}
And kernel_has_rtsig is defined in two places, sysdeps/generic/testrtsig.h
and sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/testrtsig.h. In the former, it is defined
like this:
static int
kernel_has_rtsig (void)
{
return 0;
}
And in the latter:
static int
kernel_has_rtsig (void)
{
#if __ASSUME_REALTIME_SIGNALS
return 1;
#else
struct utsname name;
return uname (&name) == 0 && __strverscmp (name.release, "2.1.70") >= 0;
#endif
}
Maybe the problem is that when glibc-2.3.1/sysdeps/generic/allocrtsig.c
includes testrtsig.h, it does it like this:
#include "testrtsig.h"
and the wrong file is used. I don't know...
Oskar Liljeblad ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Kernel Version: Linux oskar 2.4.19 #3 Fri Oct 4 17:30:42 CEST 2002 i686 unknown
unknown GNU/Linux
Versions of the packages libc6 depends on:
ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-6The Berkeley database routines [glibc 2.0/2.
Re: glibc-snapshot package
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 03:51:44AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > In short, I doubt we will get sufficient testing on problematic > > arches unless we take the leap and push into sid. However I would > > make sure that the findsyms perl script I wrote has been run on the > > debian sid package archives for any arches which we have to create a > > libgcc-compat for to make sure our list of libgcc symbols is complete. > > I'm not sure that is the case for mips yet for example. > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200209/msg00164.html > > I want to know mips has this problem (buildd tell us the answer, I hope). > If so, I agree we should fix as you said. I'm investigating this. I have a libgcc-comat patch for mips ( http://honk.physik.uni-konstanz.de/linux-mips/glibc/patches/experimental/libgcc-compat-mips.dpatch ) and am currently scanning the unstable distribution. The tests in my small chroot showed that a libgcc-compat for mips might not be necessary, but only the complete scan will show. Regards, -- Guido -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165417: libc6: ldd depends on file for files with exec bit off
Package: libc6 Version: 2.2.5-14.3 Severity: normal The ldd script fails on non-executable files (such as most libraries) if the file package is not installed. -- System Information Debian Release: testing/unstable Kernel Version: Linux gondolin 2.4.18-686-smp #1 SMP Sun Apr 14 12:07:19 EST 2002 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux Versions of the packages libc6 depends on: ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-5The Berkeley database routines [glibc 2.0/2. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#165412: libc6: SIGRTMIN defined as -1 with libc 2.3.1, as 32 with 2.2.5
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 165412 critical Bug#165412: libc6: SIGRTMIN defined as -1 with libc 2.3.1, as 32 with 2.2.5 Severity set to `critical'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:19:17PM -0600, Debian GLibc CVS Master wrote: > - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Clean up and fix indent crap. Oops, did I get it wrogn copying from the message? Sorry! -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/packages.d by gotom
Repository: glibc-package/debian/packages.d who:gotom time: Fri Oct 18 13:19:18 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Clean up and fix indent crap. Files: changed:libc-udeb.mk
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:gotom time: Fri Oct 18 13:19:16 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Clean up and fix indent crap. Files: changed:changelog
Bug#165358: Also caused segfaults in su and ssh
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:37:51PM -0500, Zed Pobre wrote: > Attempting to su to root (even from root) with 2.3.1-1 on one of my > test systems caused an immediate segfault. Also, attempting to ssh > to root on the same system allowed login, but then immediately died. > The problem was fixed by reverting libc6 and related package. No > core files were left, but if it's important, I can probably be > persuaded to put the broken libc6 version back on and run su inside > of gdb. The ssh problem is probably the known bug that anything using NSS needs to be restarted after the libc upgrade. The next package will warn about that. I've been using test versions of the 2.3 package for almost a month now and haven't seen any su segfaults. Please investigate that further. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Re: glibc-snapshot package
At Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:50:19 -0400 (EDT), Jack Howarth wrote: >I thought the plan was to simply push glibc 2.3.1 into sid, no? > I have been running the glibc 2.3 debian cvs source patches > and glibc cvs (built almost daily) on debian ppc sid for about > a month now. I have seen no issues running gcc 2.95.4/glibc 2.2.5 > built binaries under it. I would vote to simply do the push into > sid and fix the breakage. Other than problems with glibc not passing > make check on some arches (which can be captured by just letting those > offending builds go into sid), the only real issue left should be > a bit of libgcc-compat code on arches like mips. I have already > posted the outline of a patch for them to fix that... > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200210/msg00154.html > > In short, I doubt we will get sufficient testing on problematic > arches unless we take the leap and push into sid. However I would > make sure that the findsyms perl script I wrote has been run on the > debian sid package archives for any arches which we have to create a > libgcc-compat for to make sure our list of libgcc symbols is complete. > I'm not sure that is the case for mips yet for example. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200209/msg00164.html I want to know mips has this problem (buildd tell us the answer, I hope). If so, I agree we should fix as you said. -- gotom
Bug#165378: marked as done (ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user)
Your message dated Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:44:13 +0900 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Processed: Re: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Oct 2002 16:19:02 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 18 11:19:01 2002 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from dclient217-162-83-42.hispeed.ch (yggdrasil) [217.162.83.42] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 182Zq1-0007P8-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:19:01 -0500 Received: from mutsumi by yggdrasil with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 182Zpv-0007lN-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:18:55 +0200 From: Mutsumi Otohime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.2 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:18:55 +0200 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: Package: ipopd Version: 4:2001adebian-6 Severity: important I thought about using another popd, but all others don't log to /var/log/mail. So i'm really up to get this one working again. Problem: When i try to access the pop server using an email clent, the following error is written to the syslog log: Oct 18 18:10:43 yggdrasil inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user System Information Debian Release: testing/unstable Kernel Version: Linux yggdrasil 2.4.19 #1 Mon Aug 19 16:02:45 CEST 2002 i686 AMD Duron(tm) processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux Versions of the packages ipopd depends on: ii libc-client200 2001adebian-6 UW c-client library for mail protocols ii libc6 2.3.1-1GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone ii libpam0g 0.76-6 Pluggable Authentication Modules library --- Received: (at 165378-close) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Oct 2002 18:44:17 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 18 13:44:16 2002 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.gr.jp) [218.44.239.73] ([S4AYcJH+BTpEcwF3iRNje6eyqe9pTgTS]) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 182c6Z-0001d9-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:44:15 -0500 Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.jp [218.44.239.73]) by oris.opensource.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED25C3495 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:44:13 +0900 (JST) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:44:13 +0900 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Processed: Re: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.3 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01, USER_AGENT version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: At Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:18:24 -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > reassign 165378 libc6 > Bug#165378: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user > Bug reassigned from package `ipopd' to `libc6'. Please do /etc/init.d/inetd restart -- gotom
Processed: Re: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 165378 libc6 Bug#165378: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user Bug reassigned from package `ipopd' to `libc6'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:03:04PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote: > >> The problem is that libc6-dbg is unpacked BEFORE libc6 [...] > > Do you think making libc6-dbg pre-depend instead of depend'ing on > > libc6 (= 2.3.1-1) would work? > I suppose so; but I do not know exactly how the internals of dpkg > work. All I know is that my system broke down badly which was not > such a happy experience. :-) It had never occured to me to put the debug path in the cache file. I'm not sure how common of a scenario that is, or it should've bitten someone before. If noone else comments on it, then I will put that change in. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
Jeff Bailey said: >> The problem is that libc6-dbg is unpacked BEFORE libc6 [...] > Do you think making libc6-dbg pre-depend instead of depend'ing on > libc6 (= 2.3.1-1) would work? I suppose so; but I do not know exactly how the internals of dpkg work. All I know is that my system broke down badly which was not such a happy experience. :-) -- Best regards, Per
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We've been over this before. Problem is, it's almost impossible to tell No doubt; apologies for neglecting to check the archives. > which ones will need it till they actually fail. We've generally just > done the libc6 upgreade and wait for bug reports on services that need > to be added to the list. Fair enough. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
Re: cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:19:17PM -0600, Debian GLibc CVS Master wrote: > - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Clean up and fix indent crap. Oops, did I get it wrogn copying from the message? Sorry! -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165358: A few more details on libc6 2.3.1-1 breakage
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 06:13:28PM +0200, Vincenzo Gervasi wrote: > > The update broke other packages as well. > For example, java reports > Error occurred during initialization of VM > Unable to load native library: > /usr/java/j2sdk1.4.0/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol __libc_waitpid, > version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference > I am not sure whether waitpid is the only call affected or not. In the > various changelogs for libc6 there is no mention of changes affecting > that particular call. The trick here is that they're not calling waitpid, they're calling __libc_waitpid, which is not a published call. All internal interfaces are now hiden from user applications, and any applications which used them (despite the fact that they were undocumented and didn't appear in headers) will now break. Newer versions of the jdk fix this bug. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165373: libc6: cannot login using ssh
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:55:59PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote: > This problem is introduced when using libc6_2.3.1-1_i386.deb, when > reinstalling libc6_2.2.5-15_i386.deb the problem goes away. This is a known problem, 2.3.1-2 will contain the right warning. Restart sshd (and anything else that does NSS lookups) after upgrading glibc and you'll be fine. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165373: [MAILER-DAEMON: Returned mail: see transcript for details]
If you want me to help you on other bugs, you might want to fix your mail system. Declaring that you think spam might have come from here without explaining what test was used is not helpful. - Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem - From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) The original message was received at Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:52:29 -0700 from localhost [127.0.0.1] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 553 5.3.0 E-mail refused - see http://www.dto.tudelft.nl/blacklist.htm) -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165358: libc6 2.3.1-1 breaks fetchmail/exim (and others?)
At Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:57:38 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > I yesterday upgraded glibc to the 2.3.1-1 release and suddenly my > fetchmail does not work complaining it cannot connect to local SMTP. > > Downgrading all *libc* and locales Packages to 2.2.5-15 fixes that... /etc/init.d/nscd stop /etc/init.d/nscd start -- gotom
Bug#165358: libc6 2.3.1-1 breaks fetchmail/exim (and others?)
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:57:38PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > I yesterday upgraded glibc to the 2.3.1-1 release and suddenly my > fetchmail does not work complaining it cannot connect to local SMTP. > Downgrading all *libc* and locales Packages to 2.2.5-15 fixes that... 2.3.1-2 will have a warning saying that you need to restart all NSS-using services. After you upgrade, restart your local SMTP service, and you'll be fine. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:00:24PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Heh, restart display managers is outside the scope of libc. Restarting > > services is pushing it enough I think. > > Hmm, I wonder if it would be saner to have some mechanism (perhaps > just a directory fed to run-parts?) for packages to register > themselves for the next time this sort of change happens; having libc > list affected services itself does strike me as a layering violation. We've been over this before. Problem is, it's almost impossible to tell which ones will need it till they actually fail. We've generally just done the libc6 upgreade and wait for bug reports on services that need to be added to the list. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Bug#165287: libc6: ip6-fix.patch should be removed
At Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:26:03 +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > like in the topic. the patch is not needed anymore. > The new resolver in glibc-2.3.1 is now perfectly able to handle both ip6.arpa > and ip6.int queries. Thanks for your suggestion. I've just disabled it. > there are some pro and cons disabling the patch, such as more dns traffic > generated from the removal, but it is time to go upstream like Ben Collins > pointed out since long time. I don't know that increasing DNS traffic is real problem... -- gotom
Bug#165358: Also caused segfaults in su and ssh
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:37:51PM -0500, Zed Pobre wrote: > Attempting to su to root (even from root) with 2.3.1-1 on one of my > test systems caused an immediate segfault. Also, attempting to ssh > to root on the same system allowed login, but then immediately died. > The problem was fixed by reverting libc6 and related package. No > core files were left, but if it's important, I can probably be > persuaded to put the broken libc6 version back on and run su inside > of gdb. The ssh problem is probably the known bug that anything using NSS needs to be restarted after the libc upgrade. The next package will warn about that. I've been using test versions of the 2.3 package for almost a month now and haven't seen any su segfaults. Please investigate that further. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/packages.d by gotom
Repository: glibc-package/debian/packages.d who:gotom time: Fri Oct 18 13:19:18 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Clean up and fix indent crap. Files: changed:libc-udeb.mk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:gotom time: Fri Oct 18 13:19:16 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: Clean up and fix indent crap. Files: changed:changelog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:gotom time: Fri Oct 18 10:49:11 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/patches/0list: disable ip6-fix.dpatch. Closes: #165287 Files: changed:changelog
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/patches by gotom
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches who:gotom time: Fri Oct 18 10:49:11 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/patches/0list: disable ip6-fix.dpatch. Closes: #165287 Files: changed:0list
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:58:53PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote: > The problem is that libc6-dbg is unpacked BEFORE libc6, and libc6 > 2.3.1-1 requires the new dynamic linked ld-linux.so.2 (which has not > been installed yet). Thus, dpkg-dbg is unpacked correctly, but when > trying to unpack libc6 (and running any other program from this > point on) things fail badly since it tries to load libc from > /usr/lib/debug/libc6.so... which don't work, since the new > ld-linux.so.2 has not been installed yet. Do you think making libc6-dbg pre-depend instead of depend'ing on libc6 (= 2.3.1-1) would work? -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165358: A few more details on libc6 2.3.1-1 breakage
The update broke other packages as well. For example, java reports Error occurred during initialization of VM Unable to load native library: /usr/java/j2sdk1.4.0/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol __libc_waitpid, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference I am not sure whether waitpid is the only call affected or not. In the various changelogs for libc6 there is no mention of changes affecting that particular call. -Vincenzo
Re: glibc-snapshot package
At Wed, 16 Oct 2002 09:50:19 -0400 (EDT), Jack Howarth wrote: >I thought the plan was to simply push glibc 2.3.1 into sid, no? > I have been running the glibc 2.3 debian cvs source patches > and glibc cvs (built almost daily) on debian ppc sid for about > a month now. I have seen no issues running gcc 2.95.4/glibc 2.2.5 > built binaries under it. I would vote to simply do the push into > sid and fix the breakage. Other than problems with glibc not passing > make check on some arches (which can be captured by just letting those > offending builds go into sid), the only real issue left should be > a bit of libgcc-compat code on arches like mips. I have already > posted the outline of a patch for them to fix that... > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200210/msg00154.html > > In short, I doubt we will get sufficient testing on problematic > arches unless we take the leap and push into sid. However I would > make sure that the findsyms perl script I wrote has been run on the > debian sid package archives for any arches which we have to create a > libgcc-compat for to make sure our list of libgcc symbols is complete. > I'm not sure that is the case for mips yet for example. > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2002/debian-glibc-200209/msg00164.html I want to know mips has this problem (buildd tell us the answer, I hope). If so, I agree we should fix as you said. -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165378: marked as done (ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user)
Your message dated Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:44:13 +0900 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Processed: Re: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Oct 2002 16:19:02 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 18 11:19:01 2002 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from dclient217-162-83-42.hispeed.ch (yggdrasil) [217.162.83.42] by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 182Zq1-0007P8-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:19:01 -0500 Received: from mutsumi by yggdrasil with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 182Zpv-0007lN-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:18:55 +0200 From: Mutsumi Otohime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.2 Message-Id: Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:18:55 +0200 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: Package: ipopd Version: 4:2001adebian-6 Severity: important I thought about using another popd, but all others don't log to /var/log/mail. So i'm really up to get this one working again. Problem: When i try to access the pop server using an email clent, the following error is written to the syslog log: Oct 18 18:10:43 yggdrasil inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user System Information Debian Release: testing/unstable Kernel Version: Linux yggdrasil 2.4.19 #1 Mon Aug 19 16:02:45 CEST 2002 i686 AMD Duron(tm) processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux Versions of the packages ipopd depends on: ii libc-client200 2001adebian-6 UW c-client library for mail protocols ii libc6 2.3.1-1GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone ii libpam0g 0.76-6 Pluggable Authentication Modules library --- Received: (at 165378-close) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Oct 2002 18:44:17 + >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 18 13:44:16 2002 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.gr.jp) [218.44.239.73] ([S4AYcJH+BTpEcwF3iRNje6eyqe9pTgTS]) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian)) id 182c6Z-0001d9-00; Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:44:15 -0500 Received: from oris.opensource.jp (oris.opensource.jp [218.44.239.73]) by oris.opensource.gr.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED25C3495 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:44:13 +0900 (JST) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 03:44:13 +0900 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: GOTO Masanori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Processed: Re: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.9.9 (Unchained Melody) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.2 (i386-debian-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.3 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01, USER_AGENT version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: At Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:18:24 -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > reassign 165378 libc6 > Bug#165378: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user > Bug reassigned from package `ipopd' to `libc6'. Please do /etc/init.d/inetd restart -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: where did 2.3.1-1 on ppc go?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:55:21AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: >What happened to the glibc 2.3.1-1 ppc deb packages built on > voltaire yesterday? They showed up on incoming.debian.org and seemed > to pass okay according to the log at buildd.debian.org but were > never moved into sid. Are they on hold or something? Dunno. I haven't heard anything. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165373: libc6: cannot login using ssh
Subject: libc6: cannot login using ssh Package: libc6 Version: 2.3.1-1 Severity: normal Tags: sid This problem is introduced when using libc6_2.3.1-1_i386.deb, when reinstalling libc6_2.2.5-15_i386.deb the problem goes away. When I try to login from a remote (woody) host to a sid host: % ssh spiritus Connection to spiritus closed by remote host. Connection to spiritus closed. The relevant output of ssh -v spiritus (spiritus runs sid): ... debug1: try pubkey: /home/arthur/.ssh/id_rsa debug1: input_userauth_pk_ok: pkalg ssh-rsa blen 149 lastkey 0x80918b0 hint 0 debug1: read PEM private key done: type RSA debug1: ssh-userauth2 successful: method publickey debug1: channel 0: new [client-session] debug1: send channel open 0 debug1: Entering interactive session. debug1: channel_free: channel 0: client-session, nchannels 1 Connection to spiritus closed by remote host. Connection to spiritus closed. debug1: Transferred: stdin 0, stdout 0, stderr 79 bytes in 0.0 seconds debug1: Bytes per second: stdin 0.0, stdout 0.0, stderr 8319.2 debug1: Exit status -1 So I successfully autheticate using ssh keys and when the session is started something bums out. On the target (spiritus/sid) machine I get in /var/log/auth.log: Oct 18 12:54:25 spiritus sshd[14571]: Could not reverse map address 192.168.12.1. Oct 18 12:54:25 spiritus sshd[14571]: PAM rejected by account configuration[9]: Authentication service cannot retrieve authentication info. Oct 18 12:54:25 spiritus sshd[14571]: fatal: monitor_read: unsupported request: 24 The first is also strange since 'dig -x 192.168.12.1' produces the expected results. If I use libc6_2.2.5-15_i386.deb I get: Oct 18 13:01:44 spiritus sshd[14886]: Accepted publickey for arthur from 192.168.12.1 port 3947 ssh2 Oct 18 13:01:44 spiritus ssh(pam_unix)[14888]: session opened for user arthur by (uid=1000) and I get a session. My /etc/nsswitch.conf: passwd: files ldap group: files ldap shadow: files ldap hosts: files dns networks: files protocols: db files services: db files ethers: db files rpc:db files netgroup: nis my /etc/resolv.conf: search thuis.net nameserver 192.168.12.1 my /etc/pam.d/ssh: #%PAM-1.0 auth required pam_nologin.so auth required pam_unix.so auth required pam_env.so # [1] accountrequired pam_unix.so sessionrequired pam_unix.so sessionoptional pam_lastlog.so # [1] sessionoptional pam_motd.so # [1] sessionoptional pam_mail.so standard noenv # [1] sessionrequired pam_limits.so password required pam_unix.so The user that I try to login as has an account in /etc/passwd. The versions of pam (libpam-modules, libpam-runtime, libpam0g) I tried this with are: 0.76-3, 0.76-4, 0.76-5 and 0.76-6. All these versions fail. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux spiritus 2.4.18 #10 Sun May 12 22:32:47 CEST 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE= Versions of packages libc6 depends on: ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-6The Berkeley database routines [gl -- no debconf information -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://tiefighter.et.tudelft.nl/~arthur --
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Heh, restart display managers is outside the scope of libc. Restarting > services is pushing it enough I think. Hmm, I wonder if it would be saner to have some mechanism (perhaps just a directory fed to run-parts?) for packages to register themselves for the next time this sort of change happens; having libc list affected services itself does strike me as a layering violation. OTOH, such events seem pretty rare (yay for compatibility within minor versions), so adding extra infrastructure for them may be overkill. On the gripping hand, Debian has always (rightly) placed a lot of value on infrastructure AFAICT. Thoughts? (Obviously this is too late to use for 2.2 -> 2.3, but it should be possible to complete the transition in plenty of time for whatever follows it [2.4? 3.0?].) -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:03:04PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote: > >> The problem is that libc6-dbg is unpacked BEFORE libc6 [...] > > Do you think making libc6-dbg pre-depend instead of depend'ing on > > libc6 (= 2.3.1-1) would work? > I suppose so; but I do not know exactly how the internals of dpkg > work. All I know is that my system broke down badly which was not > such a happy experience. :-) It had never occured to me to put the debug path in the cache file. I'm not sure how common of a scenario that is, or it should've bitten someone before. If noone else comments on it, then I will put that change in. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
Package: libc6-dbg Version: 2.3.1-1 Severity: critical If libc6-dbg is installed, and /usr/lib/debug is the first line in /etc/ld.so.conf, the upgrade from previous versions of libc6 to 2.3.1-1 breaks the system. The problem is that libc6-dbg is unpacked BEFORE libc6, and libc6 2.3.1-1 requires the new dynamic linked ld-linux.so.2 (which has not been installed yet). Thus, dpkg-dbg is unpacked correctly, but when trying to unpack libc6 (and running any other program from this point on) things fail badly since it tries to load libc from /usr/lib/debug/libc6.so... which don't work, since the new ld-linux.so.2 has not been installed yet. A temporary workaround if you are in this situation is to first remove the line from /etc/ld.so.conf and rerun ldconfig, before you try the update. Otherwise your system will break so bad it can't even be shutdown properly. I have no proposed solution how to solve this bug in the package, for I presume libc6 cannot be installed before packages that depend on a certain version of it (libc6-dbg) has been updated. Perhaps a debconf warning or a 'head -1 /etc/ld.so.conf' to see if the user is vulnerable to this bug? -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux linux-develop 2.4.18-686 #1 Sun Apr 14 11:32:47 EST 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US Versions of packages libc6-dbg depends on: ii libc6 2.3.1-1GNU C Library: Shared libraries an -- no debconf information
Processed: Re: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > reassign 165378 libc6 Bug#165378: ipopd: inetd[29700]: getpwnam: root: No such user Bug reassigned from package `ipopd' to `libc6'. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
where did 2.3.1-1 on ppc go?
What happened to the glibc 2.3.1-1 ppc deb packages built on voltaire yesterday? They showed up on incoming.debian.org and seemed to pass okay according to the log at buildd.debian.org but were never moved into sid. Are they on hold or something? Jack
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/sysdeps by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/sysdeps who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:51:33 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/sysdeps/build-options.mk: Strip libc on alpha Files: changed:build-options.mk
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:51:33 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/sysdeps/build-options.mk: Strip libc on alpha Files: changed:changelog
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
Jeff Bailey said: >> The problem is that libc6-dbg is unpacked BEFORE libc6 [...] > Do you think making libc6-dbg pre-depend instead of depend'ing on > libc6 (= 2.3.1-1) would work? I suppose so; but I do not know exactly how the internals of dpkg work. All I know is that my system broke down badly which was not such a happy experience. :-) -- Best regards, Per -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stripping libc on Alpha
Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:02:08AM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote: > > > > Hmm...I can't recall right now why we chose to not strip it. You > > > could always give it a go and see what happens. I'll dig through > > > some old notes and see if I can come up with an answer as to why > > > we did that. I seem to recall that it had to be unstripped when > > > our toolchain wasn't as mature, but I'm not sure. > > > Well, running programs and compiling stuff seems to work (at least I > > got a few gccs bootstrapped). I havend yet tried whether it confuses > > gdb or so... > > Is there any reason I shouldn't strip the alpha deb? If you're able > to boot and run, then I'm inclined to just do it. Lemme know, I'm > doing another upload tonight. I'd say strip it. It works for me, and otherwise lots of people like me with small root partitions will get into trouble. -- Falk
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/packages.d by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/packages.d who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: added: libc-udeb.mk
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/libc/DEBIAN by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/libc/DEBIAN who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: changed:postinst
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/rules.d by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/rules.d who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: changed:control.mk
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: changed:changelog rules
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/control.in by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/control.in who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: added: libc-udeb
Re: Stripping libc on Alpha
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:02:08AM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote: > > Hmm...I can't recall right now why we chose to not strip it. You > > could always give it a go and see what happens. I'll dig through > > some old notes and see if I can come up with an answer as to why > > we did that. I seem to recall that it had to be unstripped when > > our toolchain wasn't as mature, but I'm not sure. > Well, running programs and compiling stuff seems to work (at least I > got a few gccs bootstrapped). I havend yet tried whether it confuses > gdb or so... Is there any reason I shouldn't strip the alpha deb? If you're able to boot and run, then I'm inclined to just do it. Lemme know, I'm doing another upload tonight. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
glibc 2.3.1-1 needs restarting network services
We debian-glibc maintainer team got some reports and complaints about upgrading glibc 2.3.1-1 package, so please read this if you use this new one. After upgrading libc package, then please stop-and-start network services/daemons, because name service switch is changed in glibc 2.3. ex) inetd /etc/init.d/inetd stop /etc/init.d/inetd start Be careful that doing '/etc/init.d/inetd restart' has no meaning. We plan to release glibc 2.3.1-2 soon, it warns and restarts services. In addition, we got some reports that java, wine, and mzscheme do not work on glibc 2.3.1. They call libc internal functions that are not exported and not guaranteed to use through the different glibc versions, so please fix their packages. Regards, -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We've been over this before. Problem is, it's almost impossible to tell No doubt; apologies for neglecting to check the archives. > which ones will need it till they actually fail. We've generally just > done the libc6 upgreade and wait for bug reports on services that need > to be added to the list. Fair enough. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165358: A few more details on libc6 2.3.1-1 breakage
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 06:13:28PM +0200, Vincenzo Gervasi wrote: > > The update broke other packages as well. > For example, java reports > Error occurred during initialization of VM > Unable to load native library: > /usr/java/j2sdk1.4.0/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol __libc_waitpid, > version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference > I am not sure whether waitpid is the only call affected or not. In the > various changelogs for libc6 there is no mention of changes affecting > that particular call. The trick here is that they're not calling waitpid, they're calling __libc_waitpid, which is not a published call. All internal interfaces are now hiden from user applications, and any applications which used them (despite the fact that they were undocumented and didn't appear in headers) will now break. Newer versions of the jdk fix this bug. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165352: Sun Java VM fails to start
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 06:01:35AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:46:38PM +1000, Jay Hap-hang Yu wrote: > > > Error occurred during initialization of VM > > Unable to load native library: > > /usr/local/sun/j2sdk1.4.0/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol > > __libc_waitpid, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with > > link time reference > > Backward compatability is only guaranteed for published interfaces. > > 0009b274 gDF .text002c GLIBC_PRIVATE __libc_waitpid > > Java should not be refering to __libc_waitpid directly. You may want > to report the bug to them upstream, since this will hit them on every > distro. There is also a newer version of the JRE available from Sun which fixes this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Bug#165319: Problem solved (see bug #165258)
close 165319 quit After restarting inetd, all was well again... -- mail: `echo '<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' | sed -e 's/[A-S]//g'` pgp: 0x506A903A; 49D5 794A EA77 F907 764F D89E 304B 93CF 506A 903A icbm: 47° 02' 43.0" N, 07° 16' 17.5" E (WGS84)
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 12:00:24PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Heh, restart display managers is outside the scope of libc. Restarting > > services is pushing it enough I think. > > Hmm, I wonder if it would be saner to have some mechanism (perhaps > just a directory fed to run-parts?) for packages to register > themselves for the next time this sort of change happens; having libc > list affected services itself does strike me as a layering violation. We've been over this before. Problem is, it's almost impossible to tell which ones will need it till they actually fail. We've generally just done the libc6 upgreade and wait for bug reports on services that need to be added to the list. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165287: libc6: ip6-fix.patch should be removed
At Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:26:03 +0200, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote: > like in the topic. the patch is not needed anymore. > The new resolver in glibc-2.3.1 is now perfectly able to handle both ip6.arpa > and ip6.int queries. Thanks for your suggestion. I've just disabled it. > there are some pro and cons disabling the patch, such as more dns traffic > generated from the removal, but it is time to go upstream like Ben Collins > pointed out since long time. I don't know that increasing DNS traffic is real problem... -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165373: [MAILER-DAEMON: Returned mail: see transcript for details]
If you want me to help you on other bugs, you might want to fix your mail system. Declaring that you think spam might have come from here without explaining what test was used is not helpful. - Forwarded message from Mail Delivery Subsystem - From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) The original message was received at Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:52:29 -0700 from localhost [127.0.0.1] - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (reason: 553 5.3.0 E-mail refused - see http://www.dto.tudelft.nl/blacklist.htm) -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165358: libc6 2.3.1-1 breaks fetchmail/exim (and others?)
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:57:38PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > I yesterday upgraded glibc to the 2.3.1-1 release and suddenly my > fetchmail does not work complaining it cannot connect to local SMTP. > Downgrading all *libc* and locales Packages to 2.2.5-15 fixes that... 2.3.1-2 will have a warning saying that you need to restart all NSS-using services. After you upgrade, restart your local SMTP service, and you'll be fine. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165358: libc6 2.3.1-1 breaks fetchmail/exim (and others?)
At Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:57:38 +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > I yesterday upgraded glibc to the 2.3.1-1 release and suddenly my > fetchmail does not work complaining it cannot connect to local SMTP. > > Downgrading all *libc* and locales Packages to 2.2.5-15 fixes that... /etc/init.d/nscd stop /etc/init.d/nscd start -- gotom -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165373: libc6: cannot login using ssh
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:55:59PM +0200, Arthur de Jong wrote: > This problem is introduced when using libc6_2.3.1-1_i386.deb, when > reinstalling libc6_2.2.5-15_i386.deb the problem goes away. This is a known problem, 2.3.1-2 will contain the right warning. Restart sshd (and anything else that does NSS lookups) after upgrading glibc and you'll be fine. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: status 2.2.92 on s390
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 10:05:59PM +0200, Gerhard Tonn wrote: > This means glibc 2.2.92 looks rather complete on s390. 2.3.1-1 appears to have failed to build on s390 - I'm doing another upload this evening. Can you take a look to see what's up? Tks, Jeff Bailey -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:03:56AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > Heh, restart display managers is outside the scope of > libc. Restarting services is pushing it enough I think. > You are correct. I'm surprised I didn't remember that before 2.3.1 > was uploaded. > We need to get out a 2.3.1-2 real quick to fix this before we get > flooded with hundres of bug reports. I'll get that this evening, and I'll make sure the uDeb patch is in there to keep the d-i folks happy. Anything else people need in there tonight? Tks, Jeff Bailey -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Heh, restart display managers is outside the scope of libc. Restarting > services is pushing it enough I think. Hm, good point, given that it may end up logging users out; never mind that bit, then. > You are correct. I'm surprised I didn't remember that before 2.3.1 was > uploaded. Oh, well; it *is* called "unstable" for a reason... ;-) -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/patches by gotom
Repository: glibc-package/debian/patches who:gotom time: Fri Oct 18 10:49:11 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/patches/0list: disable ip6-fix.dpatch. Closes: #165287 Files: changed:0list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:58:53PM +0200, Per Lundberg wrote: > The problem is that libc6-dbg is unpacked BEFORE libc6, and libc6 > 2.3.1-1 requires the new dynamic linked ld-linux.so.2 (which has not > been installed yet). Thus, dpkg-dbg is unpacked correctly, but when > trying to unpack libc6 (and running any other program from this > point on) things fail badly since it tries to load libc from > /usr/lib/debug/libc6.so... which don't work, since the new > ld-linux.so.2 has not been installed yet. Do you think making libc6-dbg pre-depend instead of depend'ing on libc6 (= 2.3.1-1) would work? -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165358: A few more details on libc6 2.3.1-1 breakage
The update broke other packages as well. For example, java reports Error occurred during initialization of VM Unable to load native library: /usr/java/j2sdk1.4.0/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol __libc_waitpid, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference I am not sure whether waitpid is the only call affected or not. In the various changelogs for libc6 there is no mention of changes affecting that particular call. -Vincenzo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by gotom
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:gotom time: Fri Oct 18 10:49:11 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/patches/0list: disable ip6-fix.dpatch. Closes: #165287 Files: changed:changelog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 10:38:43PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: > Package: libc6 > Version: 2.3.1-1 > Severity: important > Tags: sid > > The call to dpkg --compare-versions in libc's postinst should compare > against a higher version than 2.1.95-1; after upgrading to 2.3.1-1, I > found that a lot of services (including in particular inetd and kdm) > didn't work right until I restarted them. > > Incidentally, you should also broaden the list of relevant services; I > would suggest adding kdm (and other display managers?), ssh-krb5, and > apache2 at the least. Heh, restart display managers is outside the scope of libc. Restarting services is pushing it enough I think. You are correct. I'm surprised I didn't remember that before 2.3.1 was uploaded. We need to get out a 2.3.1-2 real quick to fix this before we get flooded with hundres of bug reports. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Bug#165358: libc6 2.3.1-1 breaks fetchmail/exim (and others?)
Package: libc6 Version: 2.3.1-1 Severity: critical Justification: breaks unrelated software Hi, I yesterday upgraded glibc to the 2.3.1-1 release and suddenly my fetchmail does not work complaining it cannot connect to local SMTP. Downgrading all *libc* and locales Packages to 2.2.5-15 fixes that... Sid, i386 Regards, Rene -- .''`. Rene Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Re: where did 2.3.1-1 on ppc go?
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 11:55:21AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: >What happened to the glibc 2.3.1-1 ppc deb packages built on > voltaire yesterday? They showed up on incoming.debian.org and seemed > to pass okay according to the log at buildd.debian.org but were > never moved into sid. Are they on hold or something? Dunno. I haven't heard anything. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165373: libc6: cannot login using ssh
Subject: libc6: cannot login using ssh Package: libc6 Version: 2.3.1-1 Severity: normal Tags: sid This problem is introduced when using libc6_2.3.1-1_i386.deb, when reinstalling libc6_2.2.5-15_i386.deb the problem goes away. When I try to login from a remote (woody) host to a sid host: % ssh spiritus Connection to spiritus closed by remote host. Connection to spiritus closed. The relevant output of ssh -v spiritus (spiritus runs sid): ... debug1: try pubkey: /home/arthur/.ssh/id_rsa debug1: input_userauth_pk_ok: pkalg ssh-rsa blen 149 lastkey 0x80918b0 hint 0 debug1: read PEM private key done: type RSA debug1: ssh-userauth2 successful: method publickey debug1: channel 0: new [client-session] debug1: send channel open 0 debug1: Entering interactive session. debug1: channel_free: channel 0: client-session, nchannels 1 Connection to spiritus closed by remote host. Connection to spiritus closed. debug1: Transferred: stdin 0, stdout 0, stderr 79 bytes in 0.0 seconds debug1: Bytes per second: stdin 0.0, stdout 0.0, stderr 8319.2 debug1: Exit status -1 So I successfully autheticate using ssh keys and when the session is started something bums out. On the target (spiritus/sid) machine I get in /var/log/auth.log: Oct 18 12:54:25 spiritus sshd[14571]: Could not reverse map address 192.168.12.1. Oct 18 12:54:25 spiritus sshd[14571]: PAM rejected by account configuration[9]: Authentication service cannot retrieve authentication info. Oct 18 12:54:25 spiritus sshd[14571]: fatal: monitor_read: unsupported request: 24 The first is also strange since 'dig -x 192.168.12.1' produces the expected results. If I use libc6_2.2.5-15_i386.deb I get: Oct 18 13:01:44 spiritus sshd[14886]: Accepted publickey for arthur from 192.168.12.1 port 3947 ssh2 Oct 18 13:01:44 spiritus ssh(pam_unix)[14888]: session opened for user arthur by (uid=1000) and I get a session. My /etc/nsswitch.conf: passwd: files ldap group: files ldap shadow: files ldap hosts: files dns networks: files protocols: db files services: db files ethers: db files rpc:db files netgroup: nis my /etc/resolv.conf: search thuis.net nameserver 192.168.12.1 my /etc/pam.d/ssh: #%PAM-1.0 auth required pam_nologin.so auth required pam_unix.so auth required pam_env.so # [1] accountrequired pam_unix.so sessionrequired pam_unix.so sessionoptional pam_lastlog.so # [1] sessionoptional pam_motd.so # [1] sessionoptional pam_mail.so standard noenv # [1] sessionrequired pam_limits.so password required pam_unix.so The user that I try to login as has an account in /etc/passwd. The versions of pam (libpam-modules, libpam-runtime, libpam0g) I tried this with are: 0.76-3, 0.76-4, 0.76-5 and 0.76-6. All these versions fail. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux spiritus 2.4.18 #10 Sun May 12 22:32:47 CEST 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE= Versions of packages libc6 depends on: ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-6The Berkeley database routines [gl -- no debconf information -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://tiefighter.et.tudelft.nl/~arthur -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165258: libc6: Should restart services when upgrading from versions prior to 2.3
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Heh, restart display managers is outside the scope of libc. Restarting > services is pushing it enough I think. Hmm, I wonder if it would be saner to have some mechanism (perhaps just a directory fed to run-parts?) for packages to register themselves for the next time this sort of change happens; having libc list affected services itself does strike me as a layering violation. OTOH, such events seem pretty rare (yay for compatibility within minor versions), so adding extra infrastructure for them may be overkill. On the gripping hand, Debian has always (rightly) placed a lot of value on infrastructure AFAICT. Thoughts? (Obviously this is too late to use for 2.2 -> 2.3, but it should be possible to complete the transition in plenty of time for whatever follows it [2.4? 3.0?].) -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#165374: Breaks when upgrading to 2.3.1
Package: libc6-dbg Version: 2.3.1-1 Severity: critical If libc6-dbg is installed, and /usr/lib/debug is the first line in /etc/ld.so.conf, the upgrade from previous versions of libc6 to 2.3.1-1 breaks the system. The problem is that libc6-dbg is unpacked BEFORE libc6, and libc6 2.3.1-1 requires the new dynamic linked ld-linux.so.2 (which has not been installed yet). Thus, dpkg-dbg is unpacked correctly, but when trying to unpack libc6 (and running any other program from this point on) things fail badly since it tries to load libc from /usr/lib/debug/libc6.so... which don't work, since the new ld-linux.so.2 has not been installed yet. A temporary workaround if you are in this situation is to first remove the line from /etc/ld.so.conf and rerun ldconfig, before you try the update. Otherwise your system will break so bad it can't even be shutdown properly. I have no proposed solution how to solve this bug in the package, for I presume libc6 cannot be installed before packages that depend on a certain version of it (libc6-dbg) has been updated. Perhaps a debconf warning or a 'head -1 /etc/ld.so.conf' to see if the user is vulnerable to this bug? -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux linux-develop 2.4.18-686 #1 Sun Apr 14 11:32:47 EST 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US Versions of packages libc6-dbg depends on: ii libc6 2.3.1-1GNU C Library: Shared libraries an -- no debconf information N I@R é[huæâjx%·+z«²Ùb²Û y¸àÂ+ajËç-¡û§²æìr¸y:è¹¹^ íiËeËfjË^®X¬¶Ç^n&§¢¸
Re: 2.3.1 and jdk1.3.1_05
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 09:21, Jeff Bailey wrote: On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:55:52AM -0400, Richard Black wrote: > I realize that this is a somewhat known problem but with libc6 2.3.1, > java 1.3.1 (even with the latest patch) does not run: I think I read somewhere that IBM's latest 1.3.1 worked. > Is there any way around this? If not, could any one point me > towards some 2.2.94 debs so I can down grade--this would be much > appreciated! I guess what I was really wanting was the previous released (unstable) debs. What version was that do you know? Do you know where any are? TIA There were never any produced. You should be able to hack some together with few troubles. I don't know enough about Java to offer you other suggestions. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
where did 2.3.1-1 on ppc go?
What happened to the glibc 2.3.1-1 ppc deb packages built on voltaire yesterday? They showed up on incoming.debian.org and seemed to pass okay according to the log at buildd.debian.org but were never moved into sid. Are they on hold or something? Jack -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/sysdeps by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/sysdeps who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:51:33 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/sysdeps/build-options.mk: Strip libc on alpha Files: changed:build-options.mk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:51:33 MDT 2002 Log Message: - debian/sysdeps/build-options.mk: Strip libc on alpha Files: changed:changelog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.3.1 and jdk1.3.1_05
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:55:52AM -0400, Richard Black wrote: > I realize that this is a somewhat known problem but with libc6 2.3.1, > java 1.3.1 (even with the latest patch) does not run: I think I read somewhere that IBM's latest 1.3.1 worked. > Is there any way around this? If not, could any one point me > towards some 2.2.94 debs so I can down grade--this would be much > appreciated! There were never any produced. You should be able to hack some together with few troubles. I don't know enough about Java to offer you other suggestions. -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Re: Stripping libc on Alpha
Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:02:08AM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote: > > > > Hmm...I can't recall right now why we chose to not strip it. You > > > could always give it a go and see what happens. I'll dig through > > > some old notes and see if I can come up with an answer as to why > > > we did that. I seem to recall that it had to be unstripped when > > > our toolchain wasn't as mature, but I'm not sure. > > > Well, running programs and compiling stuff seems to work (at least I > > got a few gccs bootstrapped). I havend yet tried whether it confuses > > gdb or so... > > Is there any reason I shouldn't strip the alpha deb? If you're able > to boot and run, then I'm inclined to just do it. Lemme know, I'm > doing another upload tonight. I'd say strip it. It works for me, and otherwise lots of people like me with small root partitions will get into trouble. -- Falk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/libc/DEBIAN by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/libc/DEBIAN who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: changed:postinst -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/control.in by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/control.in who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: added: libc-udeb -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: changed:changelog rules -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/rules.d by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/rules.d who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: changed:control.mk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/packages.d by jbailey
Repository: glibc-package/debian/packages.d who:jbailey time: Fri Oct 18 09:28:20 MDT 2002 Log Message: glibc (2.3.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * This is the "Why did everything stop working, mommy?" release * Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - debian/libc/DEBIAN/postinst: Warn about NSS changes if upgrading from older than 2.2.94-1. Add ssh-krb5 and apache2 to list of services that definetly need restarting. Add libc-udeb (closes: #158589) Thanks to Tollef Fog Heen. - debian/control.in/libc-udeb: New file - debian/packages.d/libc-udeb.mk: New file - debian/rules: Call udeb machinery. - debian/rules.d/control.mk: Call udeb machinery. -- Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:27:07 -0400 Files: added: libc-udeb.mk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: 165352
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > close 165352 Bug#165352: Sun Java VM fails to start Bug closed, send any further explanations to Jay Hap-hang Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Bug#165352: Sun Java VM fails to start
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:46:38PM +1000, Jay Hap-hang Yu wrote: > Error occurred during initialization of VM > Unable to load native library: > /usr/local/sun/j2sdk1.4.0/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol > __libc_waitpid, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with > link time reference Backward compatability is only guaranteed for published interfaces. 0009b274 gDF .text 002c GLIBC_PRIVATE __libc_waitpid Java should not be refering to __libc_waitpid directly. You may want to report the bug to them upstream, since this will hit them on every distro. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling
Re: Stripping libc on Alpha
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 12:02:08AM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote: > > Hmm...I can't recall right now why we chose to not strip it. You > > could always give it a go and see what happens. I'll dig through > > some old notes and see if I can come up with an answer as to why > > we did that. I seem to recall that it had to be unstripped when > > our toolchain wasn't as mature, but I'm not sure. > Well, running programs and compiling stuff seems to work (at least I > got a few gccs bootstrapped). I havend yet tried whether it confuses > gdb or so... Is there any reason I shouldn't strip the alpha deb? If you're able to boot and run, then I'm inclined to just do it. Lemme know, I'm doing another upload tonight. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- learning from failures is nice in theory... but in practice, it sucks :) - Wolfgang Jaehrling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2.3.1 and jdk1.3.1_05
HI all, I realize that this is a somewhat known problem but with libc6 2.3.1, java 1.3.1 (even with the latest patch) does not run: $$ /usr/local/jdk1.3.1_05/bin/jar Error occurred during initialization of VM Unable to load native library: /usr/local/jdk1.3.1_05/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol __libc_wait, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference This is obviously a bit of a problem, made marginally less severe by the fact that jdk 1.4 seems okay. Is there any way around this? If not, could any one point me towards some 2.2.94 debs so I can down grade--this would be much appreciated! thanks Richard
Bug#165352: Sun Java VM fails to start
Package: libc6 Version: 2.3.1-1 Severity: important Running Sun's JDK 1.4.0. The following error message is shown when "java" is executed: Error occurred during initialization of VM Unable to load native library: /usr/local/sun/j2sdk1.4.0/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol __libc_waitpid, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with link time reference Please fix this ASAP :( pgpdQGh0eRm8n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#165352: Sun Java VM fails to start
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 06:01:35AM -0700, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:46:38PM +1000, Jay Hap-hang Yu wrote: > > > Error occurred during initialization of VM > > Unable to load native library: > > /usr/local/sun/j2sdk1.4.0/jre/lib/i386/libjava.so: symbol > > __libc_waitpid, version GLIBC_2.0 not defined in file libc.so.6 with > > link time reference > > Backward compatability is only guaranteed for published interfaces. > > 0009b274 gDF .text002c GLIBC_PRIVATE __libc_waitpid > > Java should not be refering to __libc_waitpid directly. You may want > to report the bug to them upstream, since this will hit them on every > distro. There is also a newer version of the JRE available from Sun which fixes this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
