Re: libc6-dev dependency issuse

[Kamaraju S Kusumanchi]

Mike Atkins wrote:

> When I originally installed lenny, I think I updated all packages with
> unstable inadvertantly enabled. I imagine this is the root of all evil. In
> order to force libc6 to revert to the stable version (through synaptic), I
> need to reinstall most of the system, so I went ahead and just installed
> the unstable libc6-dev.
> 

You could have done something like

sudo apt-get install libc6-dev=2.7-18 gfortran=4:4.3.2-2

(I think) That will downgrade your libc6-dev, gfortran as necessary.

raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: libc6-dev dependency issuse

[Kamaraju S Kusumanchi]

Mike Atkins wrote:

> I am trying to install gfortan, but I get a dependency issue with
> libc6-dev. I then tried to install libc6-dev by itself, but libc6-dev
> requires libc6 = 2.7-18, but I have libc6 = 2.9-4. Any ideas?
> 
> Mike
Please post the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list

raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: libc6-dev dependency issuse

[Mike Atkins]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Ron Johnson  wrote:

>
> Something (the gmu email software??) is mangling the email replies and
> threading.)
>

User error. I sent my initial message without being subscribed to the
mailing list, so in order to respond, I had to hack together your response
from the html archive.


>
> On 2009-09-01 09:28, Mike Atkins wrote:
>
>> On 2009-08-31 18:59, Mike Atkins wrote:
>>
>> I am trying to install gfortan, but I get a dependency issue with
>> libc6-dev.
>> I then tried to install libc6-dev by itself, but libc6-dev requires libc6
>> =
>> 2.7-18, but I have libc6 = 2.9-4. Any ideas?
>>
>>
>> Are you running a mixed-branch system?
>>
>> Not 100% what you mean by this,
>>
>
> Mixed stable and/or testing and/or unstable system.
>
>
When I originally installed lenny, I think I updated all packages with
unstable inadvertantly enabled. I imagine this is the root of all evil. In
order to force libc6 to revert to the stable version (through synaptic), I
need to reinstall most of the system, so I went ahead and just installed the
unstable libc6-dev.

Thanks for the help.


> --
> Brawndo's got what plants crave.  It's got electrolytes!
>

Do you know where I could get some water?


>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a
> subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
>
>

Re: libc6-dev dependency issuse

[Ron Johnson]

Something (the gmu email software??) is mangling the email replies 
and threading.)


On 2009-09-01 09:28, Mike Atkins wrote:

On 2009-08-31 18:59, Mike Atkins wrote:

I am trying to install gfortan, but I get a dependency issue with libc6-dev.
I then tried to install libc6-dev by itself, but libc6-dev requires libc6 =
2.7-18, but I have libc6 = 2.9-4. Any ideas?


Are you running a mixed-branch system?

Not 100% what you mean by this,


Mixed stable and/or testing and/or unstable system.


 but I am running lenny and I have the
following repositories set up:



deb http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main


That's interesting.

Try this:

$ apt-cache policy libc6-dev

$ apt-cache policy libc6


deb-src http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main

deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/ stable main contrib non-free

deb http://www.backports.org/debian lenny-backports main contrib non-free

deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free




--
Brawndo's got what plants crave.  It's got electrolytes!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: libc6-dev dependency issuse

[Mike Atkins]

On 2009-08-31 18:59, Mike Atkins wrote:

I am trying to install gfortan, but I get a dependency issue with libc6-dev.
I then tried to install libc6-dev by itself, but libc6-dev requires libc6 =
2.7-18, but I have libc6 = 2.9-4. Any ideas?


Are you running a mixed-branch system?

Not 100% what you mean by this, but I am running lenny and I have the
following repositories set up:

deb http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main

deb-src http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main

deb ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/ stable main contrib non-free

deb http://www.backports.org/debian lenny-backports main contrib non-free

deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free

Re: libc6-dev dependency issuse

[Ron Johnson]

On 2009-08-31 18:59, Mike Atkins wrote:
I am trying to install gfortan, but I get a dependency issue with 
libc6-dev. I then tried to install libc6-dev by itself, but libc6-dev 
requires libc6 = 2.7-18, but I have libc6 = 2.9-4. Any ideas?


Are you running a mixed-branch system?

--
Brawndo's got what plants crave.  It's got electrolytes!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

libc6-dev dependency issuse

[Mike Atkins]

I am trying to install gfortan, but I get a dependency issue with libc6-dev.
I then tried to install libc6-dev by itself, but libc6-dev requires libc6 =
2.7-18, but I have libc6 = 2.9-4. Any ideas?

Mike

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Miles Bader]

"Michael M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I think you did not hear from most of the legions of Sid users for
> whom the Xorg upgrade proceeded without a single issue.

As far as I could tell, the most annoying problems happened only if you had
customized xorg.conf, which I suppose the bulk of users will not have done
(though enough did to cause mass confusion on the mailing lists).

There are also various packages which are not updated yet and will get
deleted by default (by aptitude at least) if you try to install the new X.
I've worked around this by putting a hold on x11-common (which seems to be
the point of conflict), and had no problems so far -- but I have no idea
what's really in x11-common, so who knows if it's _really_ safe :-/

-Miles
-- 
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra.  Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath.  At night the ice weasels come.  --Nietzsche


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)]

Michael M. wrote:

Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) wrote:


Yes, I know this is not Sid, but I read with interest the many posts 
covering the Xorg upgrade. I could practically hear the yelping.




But I think you did not hear from most of the legions of Sid users for 
whom the Xorg upgrade proceeded without a single issue.  I made an 
attempt at a humorous post about how the upgrade "just worked" for me, 
despite my (real) dread of all the things I thought would go wrong.  But 
most often, people tend not to bother to post unless there is a problem.




Yes, and I should've remembered that this is Sarge. I did the upgrade, 
and it went smoothly.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Michael M.]

Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) wrote:


Yes, I know this is not Sid, but I read with interest the many posts 
covering the Xorg upgrade. I could practically hear the yelping.




But I think you did not hear from most of the legions of Sid users for 
whom the Xorg upgrade proceeded without a single issue.  I made an 
attempt at a humorous post about how the upgrade "just worked" for me, 
despite my (real) dread of all the things I thought would go wrong.  But 
most often, people tend not to bother to post unless there is a problem.


--
Michael M. ++ Portland, OR ++ USA
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute 
reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream." --S. Jackson



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[hendrik]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:40:48AM -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:06:42AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:41:09PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > 
> > > If the filename doesn't change (of the kernel image) i think neither
> > > grub nor lilo need the update. But it doesn't hurt. Unless you changed
> > > menu.lst without reading/understanding the instructions inside.
> > 
> > lilo has to be called if it is a new file, even if it has the same 
> > name.
> 
> Isn't that the purpose of symlinks to kernel images? so you don't have
> to rerun for new kernels with same name?

lilo records the actual location of the file, in hardware disk 
addresses, so that it doesn't have to care about file systems at boot 
time.

-- hendrik


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Andrew Sackville-West]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 04:33:51PM -0400, Matthias Julius wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Isn't that the purpose of symlinks to kernel images? so you don't have
> > to rerun for new kernels with same name?
> 
> This is so that the lilo.conf doesn't need to be changed.  The lilo
> bootloader doesn't know anything about filesystems.  And it doesn't
> care about filenames.
> 
> When you run lilo it saves raw disk block numbers for where the kernel
> and its initrd is stored on disk.  Since there is no trivial way to
> ensure these blocknumbers don't change when you install a new kernel
> you have to rerun lilo.
> 
> Matthias
> 
oops. now that I read it I see that I knew this. Thanks though.

A


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Matthias Julius]

Andrew Sackville-West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Isn't that the purpose of symlinks to kernel images? so you don't have
> to rerun for new kernels with same name?

This is so that the lilo.conf doesn't need to be changed.  The lilo
bootloader doesn't know anything about filesystems.  And it doesn't
care about filenames.

When you run lilo it saves raw disk block numbers for where the kernel
and its initrd is stored on disk.  Since there is no trivial way to
ensure these blocknumbers don't change when you install a new kernel
you have to rerun lilo.

Matthias


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Andrew Sackville-West]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:06:42AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:41:09PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > 
> > If the filename doesn't change (of the kernel image) i think neither
> > grub nor lilo need the update. But it doesn't hurt. Unless you changed
> > menu.lst without reading/understanding the instructions inside.
> 
> lilo has to be called if it is a new file, even if it has the same 
> name.

Isn't that the purpose of symlinks to kernel images? so you don't have
to rerun for new kernels with same name?

A

> 
> -- hendrik
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[hendrik]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:41:09PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> 
> If the filename doesn't change (of the kernel image) i think neither
> grub nor lilo need the update. But it doesn't hurt. Unless you changed
> menu.lst without reading/understanding the instructions inside.

lilo has to be called if it is a new file, even if it has the same 
name.

-- hendrik


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)]

Andreas Rippl wrote:

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 04:46:56PM -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) 
wrote:

[...]

Hi Sumo,


Hi Andreas,



I have gone through the update (without giving much thought I have to
admit) and there was no trouble here. I guess I didn't give a second
thought because of the good record updating Debian has with me. I always 
used to run unstable; sometimes I had (minor) problems, but before Sarge

turned stable, I switched from testing to stable, together with a few
backported packages. Ever since I do an apt-get update/upgrade from time
to time and had no hiccup ever.



Yes, I agree :)

Based on the fine advice of the many good gentleman and gentlewomen
on this mail-list, I've done the upgrade, and it went without a hitch.

I'll never figure out how they upgrade the C library without bring the
system down.

Kudos to the great men and women who make Debian the great O/S that it is.

PS.
About a year ago I upgraded my father's Windows XP SP1 to SP2. I still
shake when I remember the horror of that experience.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Andreas Rippl wrote:

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 04:46:56PM -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) 
wrote:

Joris Huizer wrote:
I don't know exactly why libc6 is upgraded, but the upgrade seems to be 
part of the 3.1r2 update (see http://release.debian.org/stable/3.1/3.1r2/)

I got it too, just tracking sarge too

HTH,

Thanks Joris, it does help.

Wow, we're going to get another point release. This is my first 
point-release upgrade with Debian. I'm excited.


But not so excited that I want the upgrade right *now*. I'll let the 
rest of you kind and courageous people test it out first :)


Yes, I know this is not Sid, but I read with interest the many posts 
covering the Xorg upgrade. I could practically hear the yelping.





Hi Sumo,

I have gone through the update (without giving much thought I have to
admit) and there was no trouble here. I guess I didn't give a second
thought because of the good record updating Debian has with me. I always 
used to run unstable; sometimes I had (minor) problems, but before Sarge

turned stable, I switched from testing to stable, together with a few
backported packages. Ever since I do an apt-get update/upgrade from time
to time and had no hiccup ever.



Except...
when sudo did its Sarge upgrade and necessitated a change to sudoers 
that was not (AFAIK) warned about and synaptic suddenly no longer ran.


But I do the same: most often Sarge update/upgrade without a backup first...
















--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Andrei Popescu wrote:

Hugo Vanwoerkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


John Hasler wrote:

Sumo Wrestler writes:

As Joris Huizer says, it's the new point release. I'll get it sometime,
but not now :)

There is no reason not to get it now. Point releases always go smoothly.
If you have been doing security updates you already have most of it.

I got it without any problem.


Do you need to reboot after this upgrade? I'm asking because I did the
upgrade on a remote machine with some hardware troubles and I am afraid
to reboot it.



Got already answered by the others.
No you don't.
But I installed on a local machine.
Shouldn't make any diff.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[John Hasler]

Andrei writes:
> If the filename doesn't change (of the kernel image) i think neither grub
> nor lilo need the update.

Lilo does.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Andreas Rippl]

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 04:46:56PM -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) 
wrote:
> Joris Huizer wrote:
> >
> >I don't know exactly why libc6 is upgraded, but the upgrade seems to be 
> >part of the 3.1r2 update (see http://release.debian.org/stable/3.1/3.1r2/)
> >I got it too, just tracking sarge too
> >
> >HTH,
> 
> Thanks Joris, it does help.
> 
> Wow, we're going to get another point release. This is my first 
> point-release upgrade with Debian. I'm excited.
> 
> But not so excited that I want the upgrade right *now*. I'll let the 
> rest of you kind and courageous people test it out first :)
> 
> Yes, I know this is not Sid, but I read with interest the many posts 
> covering the Xorg upgrade. I could practically hear the yelping.
> 
> 
> 
Hi Sumo,

I have gone through the update (without giving much thought I have to
admit) and there was no trouble here. I guess I didn't give a second
thought because of the good record updating Debian has with me. I always 
used to run unstable; sometimes I had (minor) problems, but before Sarge
turned stable, I switched from testing to stable, together with a few
backported packages. Ever since I do an apt-get update/upgrade from time
to time and had no hiccup ever.

-- 
Andreas Rippl -- GPG messages preferred
 Key-ID: 0x81073379


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Andrei Popescu]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:26:38PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > Joris Huizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Do you need to reboot after this upgrade? I'm asking because I did the
> > > > upgrade on a remote machine with some hardware troubles and I am afraid
> > > > to reboot it.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hmm... if you got a new kernel image you need to restart the machine to 
> > > use it (untill then it's running with the older version of the kernel)
> > > Apart from that there shouldn't be any need to reboot, as I wrote before
> > > 
> > > HTH,
> > > 
> > > Joris
> > 
> > I knew about the services and kernel part, but wasn't sure about libc,
> > as it's a pretty important part of a system. BTW, if you upgrade the
> > same kernel you are strongly encouraged to reboot ASAP, because of
> > module dependencies.
> 
> And if you use lilo to set up bootablility, you'd better run it *before* 
> you reboot; otherwise it will not be able to find the new kernel.  And 
> the old one will have been replaced, if it's really just a bugfix of the 
> same kernel version.
> 
> Anybody know about grub in this context?

If the filename doesn't change (of the kernel image) i think neither
grub nor lilo need the update. But it doesn't hurt. Unless you changed
menu.lst without reading/understanding the instructions inside.

Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Christopher Nelson]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 01:14:41PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
> And if you use lilo to set up bootablility, you'd better run it *before* 
> you reboot; otherwise it will not be able to find the new kernel.  And 
> the old one will have been replaced, if it's really just a bugfix of the 
> same kernel version.
> 
> Anybody know about grub in this context?

If you installed with grub, it sets post-install hooks to run
update-grub, which does all the work for you.  Not sure how to set that
up if you switched from lilo to grub after install phase.

-- 
Christopher Nelson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Girls who throw themselves at men, are actually taking very careful aim.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[hendrik]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 07:26:38PM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> Joris Huizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > > 
> > > Do you need to reboot after this upgrade? I'm asking because I did the
> > > upgrade on a remote machine with some hardware troubles and I am afraid
> > > to reboot it.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hmm... if you got a new kernel image you need to restart the machine to 
> > use it (untill then it's running with the older version of the kernel)
> > Apart from that there shouldn't be any need to reboot, as I wrote before
> > 
> > HTH,
> > 
> > Joris
> 
> I knew about the services and kernel part, but wasn't sure about libc,
> as it's a pretty important part of a system. BTW, if you upgrade the
> same kernel you are strongly encouraged to reboot ASAP, because of
> module dependencies.

And if you use lilo to set up bootablility, you'd better run it *before* 
you reboot; otherwise it will not be able to find the new kernel.  And 
the old one will have been replaced, if it's really just a bugfix of the 
same kernel version.

Anybody know about grub in this context?

-- hendrik
> 
> Thanks
> Andrei
> -- 
> If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
> (Albert Einstein)
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Andrei Popescu]

Joris Huizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Andrei Popescu wrote:
> > 
> > Do you need to reboot after this upgrade? I'm asking because I did the
> > upgrade on a remote machine with some hardware troubles and I am afraid
> > to reboot it.
> > 
> 
> Hmm... if you got a new kernel image you need to restart the machine to 
> use it (untill then it's running with the older version of the kernel)
> Apart from that there shouldn't be any need to reboot, as I wrote before
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Joris

I knew about the services and kernel part, but wasn't sure about libc,
as it's a pretty important part of a system. BTW, if you upgrade the
same kernel you are strongly encouraged to reboot ASAP, because of
module dependencies.

Thanks
Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Joris Huizer]

Andrei Popescu wrote:


Do you need to reboot after this upgrade? I'm asking because I did the
upgrade on a remote machine with some hardware troubles and I am afraid
to reboot it.



Hmm... if you got a new kernel image you need to restart the machine to 
use it (untill then it's running with the older version of the kernel)

Apart from that there shouldn't be any need to reboot, as I wrote before

HTH,

Joris


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Joris Huizer]

Andrei Popescu wrote:


Do you need to reboot after this upgrade? I'm asking because I did the
upgrade on a remote machine with some hardware troubles and I am afraid
to reboot it.



There shouldn't be a need to do so; if some service needs to be 
restarted, just do the `/etc/init.d/ restart`, though this 
normally happens automatically when packages are upgraded


HTH,

Joris


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Andrei Popescu]

Hugo Vanwoerkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> John Hasler wrote:
> > Sumo Wrestler writes:
> >> As Joris Huizer says, it's the new point release. I'll get it sometime,
> >> but not now :)
> > 
> > There is no reason not to get it now. Point releases always go smoothly.
> > If you have been doing security updates you already have most of it.
> 
> I got it without any problem.

Do you need to reboot after this upgrade? I'm asking because I did the
upgrade on a remote machine with some hardware troubles and I am afraid
to reboot it.

Andrei
-- 
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

John Hasler wrote:

Sumo Wrestler writes:

As Joris Huizer says, it's the new point release. I'll get it sometime,
but not now :)


There is no reason not to get it now. Point releases always go smoothly.
If you have been doing security updates you already have most of it.


I got it without any problem.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[John Hasler]

Sumo Wrestler writes:
> As Joris Huizer says, it's the new point release. I'll get it sometime,
> but not now :)

There is no reason not to get it now. Point releases always go smoothly.
If you have been doing security updates you already have most of it.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)]

Christopher Nelson wrote:

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 10:31:23AM -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) 
wrote:

I just did an "aptitude update," and now when I attempt to upgrade,
aptitude says that it wants to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev.

[...]
Again if it's the stable version, it should be good to install.  You can
check on packages.debian.org



Thanks. I fixed it by changing my sources.list to point to the security
updates only.

As Joris Huizer says, it's the new point release. I'll get it sometime,
but not now :)



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)]

Joris Huizer wrote:


I don't know exactly why libc6 is upgraded, but the upgrade seems to be 
part of the 3.1r2 update (see http://release.debian.org/stable/3.1/3.1r2/)

I got it too, just tracking sarge too

HTH,


Thanks Joris, it does help.

Wow, we're going to get another point release. This is my first 
point-release upgrade with Debian. I'm excited.


But not so excited that I want the upgrade right *now*. I'll let the 
rest of you kind and courageous people test it out first :)


Yes, I know this is not Sid, but I read with interest the many posts 
covering the Xorg upgrade. I could practically hear the yelping.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)]

Florian Kulzer wrote:


You can use

aptitude changelog libc6 libc6-dev



Thanks, this'll be useful to me. I know it's in the man-page, but I 
didn't think about it.



to see the changelogs for the new packages. Maybe that will tell you
what is up. If that does not work (I often have problems with this
lately), you can use

cd tmpdir
aptitude download libc6
dpkg-deb -X libc6 .

to download the package to some temporary directory and extract the
files. [...]



And this is even more useful. Thanks.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Roberto C. Sanchez]

Joris Huizer wrote:
> 
> I don't know exactly why libc6 is upgraded, but the upgrade seems to be
> part of the 3.1r2 update (see http://release.debian.org/stable/3.1/3.1r2/)
> I got it too, just tracking sarge too
> 

It has to do with the recent changes in daylight savings time in certain
parts of the world.  It is not unheard of for packages in stable to be
updated.  This is one of those situations where it was necessary.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[John Hasler]

Sumo Wrestler wrote:
> My question is "why are libc6 and libc6-dev being upgraded?"

IIRC, because of time zone changes.
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Joey Hess]

libc6 is updated in the point release to update timezone information and
fix a bug on the amd64 architecture. This is documented in the release
announcement under "Miscellaneous Bugfixes".

If you install apt-listchanges, it will show you the changelogs
before upgrading the packages, which is useful if you like to
second-guess the package maintainers. :-)

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Joris Huizer]

Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) wrote:

I'm using Sarge.

I just did an "aptitude update," and now when I attempt to upgrade,
aptitude says that it wants to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev.

I know that those are pretty critical to the functioning of the system,
so I've temporarily put them on hold, and I'm not upgrading yet.

My question is "why are libc6 and libc6-dev being upgraded?" I didn't
see anything on the http://www.debian.org/security/ site suggesting that
libc6 needed to be upgraded, and I didn't change my sources.list.

This is "stable." Things aren't upgraded unless it's a security concern 
(or so I thought).


I'm scared to upgrade because I don't want a non-functional system, and
I don't want Etch or Sid.



I don't know exactly why libc6 is upgraded, but the upgrade seems to be 
part of the 3.1r2 update (see http://release.debian.org/stable/3.1/3.1r2/)

I got it too, just tracking sarge too

HTH,

Joris


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Florian Kulzer]

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 10:31:23 -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) 
wrote:
> I'm using Sarge.
> 
> I just did an "aptitude update," and now when I attempt to upgrade,
> aptitude says that it wants to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev.
> 
> I know that those are pretty critical to the functioning of the system,
> so I've temporarily put them on hold, and I'm not upgrading yet.
> 
> My question is "why are libc6 and libc6-dev being upgraded?" I didn't
> see anything on the http://www.debian.org/security/ site suggesting that
> libc6 needed to be upgraded, and I didn't change my sources.list.
> 
> This is "stable." Things aren't upgraded unless it's a security concern 
> (or so I thought).

You can use

aptitude changelog libc6 libc6-dev

to see the changelogs for the new packages. Maybe that will tell you
what is up. If that does not work (I often have problems with this
lately), you can use

cd tmpdir
aptitude download libc6
dpkg-deb -X libc6 .

to download the package to some temporary directory and extract the
files. The changelogs should then be in
tmpdir/usr/share/doc/libc6/changelog.Debian.gz
(This works as a normal user as long as you have write permissions for
tmpdir, so there is no danger of damage to your system.)

-- 
Regards,
  Florian


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Christopher Nelson]

On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 10:31:23AM -0500, Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much) 
wrote:
> I'm using Sarge.
> 
> I just did an "aptitude update," and now when I attempt to upgrade,
> aptitude says that it wants to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev.
> 
> I know that those are pretty critical to the functioning of the system,
> so I've temporarily put them on hold, and I'm not upgrading yet.

Reasonable thought.
 
> My question is "why are libc6 and libc6-dev being upgraded?" I didn't
> see anything on the http://www.debian.org/security/ site suggesting that
> libc6 needed to be upgraded,

I just checked and you're correct, it's not there.

> and I didn't change my sources.list.

And as I see below it all points to sarge.

> This is "stable." Things aren't upgraded unless it's a security concern 
> (or so I thought).

Usually you're correct.  It might also be that those upgrades are
required for another security upgrade.  I don't have a sarge box running
here to check.

> I'm scared to upgrade because I don't want a non-functional system,

If it's made it's way into sarge it shouldn't break your system, but if
you wait a day or two any problems should either pop up here or on
bugs.debian.org

> and
> I don't want Etch or Sid.

Very reasonable.

> Here is my sources.list:
> #deb file:///cdrom/ sarge main
> 
> deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r1 _Sarge_ - Official i386 Binary-2
> (20051218)]/ unstable contrib main
> deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r1 _Sarge_ - Official i386 Binary-1
> (20051218)]/ unstable contrib main
> 
> 
> # deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib
> deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free
> deb ftp://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main contrib non-free

So everything points to sarge.  What version of libc6 does it want to
install?  You can check packages.debian.org to see if it's the version
in stable or not.
 
> PS.
> It wants to upgrade perl too, and I've also put those packages on hold.

Again if it's the stable version, it should be good to install.  You can
check on packages.debian.org

-- 
Christopher Nelson -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
I saw what you did and I know who you are.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

afraid to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev

[Sumo Wrestler (or just ate too much)]

I'm using Sarge.

I just did an "aptitude update," and now when I attempt to upgrade,
aptitude says that it wants to upgrade libc6 and libc6-dev.

I know that those are pretty critical to the functioning of the system,
so I've temporarily put them on hold, and I'm not upgrading yet.

My question is "why are libc6 and libc6-dev being upgraded?" I didn't
see anything on the http://www.debian.org/security/ site suggesting that
libc6 needed to be upgraded, and I didn't change my sources.list.

This is "stable." Things aren't upgraded unless it's a security concern 
(or so I thought).


I'm scared to upgrade because I don't want a non-functional system, and
I don't want Etch or Sid.

Here is my sources.list:
#deb file:///cdrom/ sarge main

deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r1 _Sarge_ - Official i386 Binary-2
(20051218)]/ unstable contrib main
deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r1 _Sarge_ - Official i386 Binary-1
(20051218)]/ unstable contrib main


# deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib
deb http://security.debian.org/ sarge/updates main contrib non-free
deb ftp://debian.uchicago.edu/debian/ stable main contrib non-free


PS.
It wants to upgrade perl too, and I've also put those packages on hold.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev dependancy problems

[Florian Ernst]

Hello!

On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 03:50:25PM -0800, damon fasching wrote:
> dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of
> libc6-dev:
>  libc6-dev depends on libc6 (=
> 2.3.2.ds1-19.0.0.1.pure64); however:
>   Version of libc6 on system is 2.3.2.ds1-19.
> dpkg: error processing libc6-dev (--configure):
>  dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>  libc6-dev

I think it's best to consult the debian-amd64 mailinglist for this,
see for example the follow-ups to
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2004/12/msg00366.html>.

Cheers,
Flo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

libc6-dev dependancy problems

[damon fasching]

Hi,

Can someone give me a hint as to how to solve the
following problem I got when I tried to update my
system yesterday?

First, here is my uname -a output.
---
Linux damon-3000 2.6.8 #3 Thu Aug 26 11:56:57 PDT 2004
x86_64 GNU/Linux
---
Here is the error I got while attempting to 'install'
after 'update' in dselect.
---
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of
libc6-dev:
 libc6-dev depends on libc6 (=
2.3.2.ds1-19.0.0.1.pure64); however:
  Version of libc6 on system is 2.3.2.ds1-19.
dpkg: error processing libc6-dev (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
 libc6-dev
---

At the moment, due to an update problem from a couple
of days previous, I can not login to this system under
X.  I get to the graphical login page with the debian
logo, but after typing my name and password the screen
goes blank and then after a few seconds the login page
returns.  I use fvwm 2.5.12.  This problem may have
been cleaned up (a lot of X related stuff has been
updated) but the libc6 dependancy problem is
preventing me from installing the updated packages.

Thanks!
  Damon




__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev for stable, correction

[Mark Copper]

Oops.  "usr/include/db1/ndbm.h" is not part of libc6-dev/stable, so at
least I know why mod_rewrite.h couldn't include it!  But what to do now?

On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 10:43:24AM -0400, Mark Copper wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am trying to build mod_perl from source on this machine:
>  Linux 2.4.25-vs1.26 #2 Fri Feb 20 22:48:22 PST 2004 i686 unknown
> 
> My first problem was installing libc6-dev in stable.  This appears not
> to work currently.  There is a related (broken) thread from April:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2004/04/msg00691.html
> 
> My work-around was to install libc6 from testing and then libc6-dev
> installed without complaint.  But when calling "perl Makefile.PL" on
> mod_perl a la "Developer's Cookbook", I get this error:
>In file included from mod_rewrite.c:50:
>mod_rewrite.h:90: ndbm.h: No such file or directory
> But "usr/include/db1/ndbm.h" belongs to libc6-dev.
> 
> Is libc6-dev my problem?  Has anyone worked around this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

libc6-dev for stable

[Mark Copper]

Hi,

I am trying to build mod_perl from source on this machine:
 Linux 2.4.25-vs1.26 #2 Fri Feb 20 22:48:22 PST 2004 i686 unknown

My first problem was installing libc6-dev in stable.  This appears not
to work currently.  There is a related (broken) thread from April:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2004/04/msg00691.html

My work-around was to install libc6 from testing and then libc6-dev
installed without complaint.  But when calling "perl Makefile.PL" on
mod_perl a la "Developer's Cookbook", I get this error:
   In file included from mod_rewrite.c:50:
   mod_rewrite.h:90: ndbm.h: No such file or directory
But "usr/include/db1/ndbm.h" belongs to libc6-dev.

Is libc6-dev my problem?  Has anyone worked around this?

Thanks,
Mark


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Axel Burwitz]

@ Jan Minar, Colin Watson, Andreas Janssen:

 

I installed them from a ftp site, and after some struggle with version.h 
finally it worked...

No idea why they have not been on the DVD

Thanks for help !

Axel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Colin Watson]

On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 05:45:03PM +0100, Axel Burwitz wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > Testing definitely has a linux-kernel-headers package (that exact name).
> 
> Hmm. I tried to install, but:
> 
> "debian-sarge:/home/axel# apt-get install linux-kernel-headers
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Package linux-kernel-headers has no available version, but exists in the
> database.
> This typically means that the package was mentioned in a dependency and
> never uploaded, has been obsoleted or is not available with the contents
> of sources.list
> E: Package linux-kernel-headers has no installation candidate"
> 
> What does this mean ? Not on my install-DVD ?

Having a DVD means that you have an out-of-date version, since sarge has
not yet been released. Use the net.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Axel Burwitz]

Jan Minar wrote:


> This is a dependency problem.  So try to do
> 
> apt-get install kernel-headers
> 
> so you'll know whether apt really thinks kernel-headers are not
> available.  

It gave:
"debian-sarge:/home/axel# apt-get install linux-kernel-headers
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Package linux-kernel-headers has no available version, but exists in the
database.
This typically means that the package was mentioned in a dependency and
never uploaded, has been obsoleted or is not available with the contents
of sources.list
E: Package linux-kernel-headers has no installation candidate"

I think I try to get it from an ftp..

Axel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Axel Burwitz]

Colin Watson wrote:


> 
> Testing definitely has a linux-kernel-headers package (that exact name).
> 

Hmm. I tried to install, but:

"debian-sarge:/home/axel# apt-get install linux-kernel-headers
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Package linux-kernel-headers has no available version, but exists in the
database.
This typically means that the package was mentioned in a dependency and
never uploaded, has been obsoleted or is not available with the contents
of sources.list
E: Package linux-kernel-headers has no installation candidate"

What does this mean ? Not on my install-DVD ? Shall I try to install from a
package mirror or what could you recommend ??

Axel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Jan Minar]

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 12:11:50PM +0100, Axel Burwitz wrote:
> I am using Sarge/testing, and all I can find from my install DVD is a
> "kernel-headers-2.4.22-bf2.4" that fits to my kernel version. I have
> installed that, but still that message appears..

Hi, Axel!

As it seems you're not going to get help from anyone that knows what's
going on here, here's some from someone that knows the least about
the libc6 or kernel headers:

This is a dependency problem.  So try to do 

apt-get install kernel-headers

so you'll know whether apt really thinks kernel-headers are not
available.  Try to look in the output of ``dpkg -s foo'', where foo is
replaced with various package names of the dependency tree.  My Woody r2
+ secrurity updates ``apt-cache search kernel-headers'' output is rather
voluminous; ain't yours too?:

| % apt-cache search kernel-headers
| kernel-headers-2.2.20-reiserfs - Header files related to Linux kernel version 2.2.20
| kernel-headers-2.2.20-sparc - Kernel header files for all sparc sub architectures
| kernel-headers-2.4.16 - Header files related to Linux kernel version 2.4.16
| kernel-headers-2.4.16-386 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.16 on 386
| kernel-headers-2.4.16-586 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.16 on 
586/K5/5x86/6x86/6x86MX
| kernel-headers-2.4.16-586tsc - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.16 on 
Pentium-Classic
| kernel-headers-2.4.16-686 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.16 on 
PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII
| kernel-headers-2.4.16-686-smp - Linux kernel headers 2.4.16 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII 
SMP
| kernel-headers-2.4.16-k6 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.16 on AMD 
K6/K6-II/K6-III
| kernel-headers-2.4.16-k7 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.16 on AMD K7
| kernel-headers-2.4.18 - Header files related to Linux kernel version 2.4.18
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-386 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 on 386
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-586tsc - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 on 
Pentium-Classic
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-686 - Linux kernel headers 2.4.18 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-686-smp - Linux kernel headers 2.4.18 on 
PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV SMP
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-k6 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 on AMD 
K6/K6-II/K6-III
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-k7 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 on AMD K7
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-sparc - Kernel header files for all sparc sub architectures
| kernel-headers-2.4.19-sparc - Kernel header files for all sparc sub architectures
| kernel-package - Debian Linux kernel package build scripts.
| kernel-headers-2.2.20 - Header files related to Linux kernel version 2.2.20
| kernel-headers-2.2.20-compact - Header files related to Linux kernel version 
2.2.20-compact
| kernel-headers-2.2.20-idepci - Header files related to Linux kernel version 
2.2.20-idepci
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-1 - Header files related to Linux kernel version 2.4.18
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-1-386 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 on 386
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-1-586tsc - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 on 
Pentium-Classic
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-1-686 - Linux kernel headers 2.4.18 on 
PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-1-686-smp - Linux kernel headers 2.4.18 on 
PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV SMP
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-1-k6 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 on AMD 
K6/K6-II/K6-III
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-1-k7 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 on AMD K7
| kernel-headers-2.4.18-bf2.4 - Headers for Linux kernel version 2.4.18 (bf variant) 
on 386

HTH,
Jan.

-- 
Jan Minar  "Please don't CC me, I'm subscribed." x 4


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 12:11:50PM +0100, Axel Burwitz wrote:
> Andreas Janssen wrote:
> > If I remember correctly, the headers were part of the libc6-dev package
> > (and still are, if you use Woody), but some time ago the package was
> > split and they are now in their own package. So you should try to get
> > them from the same source you got your libc6-dev from. Where exactly
> > does that package come from?
> 
> Andreas,
> 
> I am using Sarge/testing, and all I can find from my install DVD is a
> "kernel-headers-2.4.22-bf2.4" that fits to my kernel version. I have
> installed that, but still that message appears..

Testing definitely has a linux-kernel-headers package (that exact name).

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Andreas Janssen]

Hello

Axel Burwitz (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:

> Andreas Janssen wrote:
> 
>> If I remember correctly, the headers were part of the libc6-dev
>> package (and still are, if you use Woody), but some time ago the
>> package was split and they are now in their own package. So you
>> should try to get them from the same source you got your libc6-dev
>> from. Where exactly does that package come from?
> 
> I am using Sarge/testing, and all I can find from my install DVD is a
> "kernel-headers-2.4.22-bf2.4" that fits to my kernel version. I have
> installed that, but still that message appears..

I think you need the headers that were used when the libc was built. I
don't know why they aren't on the DVD, but maybe adding a server like
ftp.de.debian.org to your sources.list will help.

best regards
Andreas Janssen

-- 
Andreas Janssen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674
Registered Linux User #267976


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Axel Burwitz]

Andreas Janssen wrote:


> 
> If I remember correctly, the headers were part of the libc6-dev package
> (and still are, if you use Woody), but some time ago the package was
> split and they are now in their own package. So you should try to get
> them from the same source you got your libc6-dev from. Where exactly
> does that package come from?
> 
> best regards
> Andreas Janssen
> 

Andreas,

I am using Sarge/testing, and all I can find from my install DVD is a
"kernel-headers-2.4.22-bf2.4" that fits to my kernel version. I have
installed that, but still that message appears..

best regards and a fine new year,

Axel



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Andreas Janssen]

Hello

Axel Burwitz (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:

> I have following problem and can't find resolution in books, doc, and
> google:
> 
> When I want to install libc6-dev with apt-get, I get the message:
> 
> "The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>   libc6-dev: Depends: linux-kernel-headers but it is not installable
> E: Broken packages"
> 
> Can't find a package with this name, there's no file with this name
> installed somewhere in my system, etc etc
> 
> Some things I found with google indicate that in woody there is not
> such a dependancy.
> 
> What can I do ??

If I remember correctly, the headers were part of the libc6-dev package
(and still are, if you use Woody), but some time ago the package was
split and they are now in their own package. So you should try to get
them from the same source you got your libc6-dev from. Where exactly
does that package come from?

best regards
Andreas Janssen

-- 
Andreas Janssen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP-Key-ID: 0xDC801674
Registered Linux User #267976


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

libc6-dev depends from linux-kernel-headers ?

[Axel Burwitz]

Hi,

I have following problem and can't find resolution in books, doc, and
google:

When I want to install libc6-dev with apt-get, I get the message:

"The following packages have unmet dependencies:
  libc6-dev: Depends: linux-kernel-headers but it is not installable
E: Broken packages"

Can't find a package with this name, there's no file with this name
installed somewhere in my system, etc etc

Some things I found with google indicate that in woody there is not such a
dependancy.

What can I do ??

rgds 
Axel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

trouble linking with libc6-dev in Sid

[Freels, James D.]

Hello !  I have cross posted this inquiry to both -user and -devel in hopes of finding the right person to answer this question.

I have been using the intel fortran compiler and am current with their present version (7.1.031).  This compiler is only supports 2.2.5 and 2.2.93 of libc which limits me to Debian/Woody/Stable for compatibility.  Since I use Debian/Sid/Unstable this imposes a problem with libc compatibility.  I have gotten around this problem in the past by using the /usr/lib/libc.a  and/or /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a from a Debian/Woody/Stable machine as the first entry in the link search to allow the code to link and execute.  This has worked great up until today.

Now, I receive the following error message with I try to link my fortran code:

/usr/lib/crt1.o(.text+0xc): In function `_start':
: undefined reference to `__libc_csu_fini'
/usr/lib/crt1.o(.text+0x11): In function `_start':
: undefined reference to `__libc_csu_init'

since /usr/lib/crt1.o is from the libc6-dev package, I have a problem.

Is there a way to create a static-executable from a Debian/Stable machine to perform this link ?

Is there another way to work around this problem ?





-- 
James D. Freels, Ph.D.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev conflicting with kernel-source

[Bruno Diniz de Paula]

Thanks, David! Solved the problem...

Bruno.

On Fri, 2003-06-06 at 11:58, David Z Maze wrote:
> Bruno Diniz de Paula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I'm writting a program that deals with some kernel structures (defined
> > on the kernel source includes), as well as with some definitions from
> > libc6-dev under asm/... and linux/... The problem is that some of the
> > symbols are duplicated and, what is worse, with different definitions.
> > What would be a solution for this?
> 
> Set the include path for your compiler to explicitly include the
> kernel headers you care about.
> (-I/home/dmaze/src/kernel-source-2.4.20, or some such)
> 
> > I mean, why glibc also defines something that is strictly related to
> > the kernel itself? I thought that everything inside libc6 concerning
> > kernel stuff was taken directly from the kernel source includes
> > instead of redeclared...
> 
> See /usr/share/doc/libc6/README.Debian.gz.
> 
> -- 
> David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
> "Theoretical politics is interesting.  Politicking should be illegal."
>   -- Abra Mitchell
-- 
Bruno Diniz de Paula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rutgers University


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: libc6-dev conflicting with kernel-source

[David Z Maze]

Bruno Diniz de Paula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm writting a program that deals with some kernel structures (defined
> on the kernel source includes), as well as with some definitions from
> libc6-dev under asm/... and linux/... The problem is that some of the
> symbols are duplicated and, what is worse, with different definitions.
> What would be a solution for this?

Set the include path for your compiler to explicitly include the
kernel headers you care about.
(-I/home/dmaze/src/kernel-source-2.4.20, or some such)

> I mean, why glibc also defines something that is strictly related to
> the kernel itself? I thought that everything inside libc6 concerning
> kernel stuff was taken directly from the kernel source includes
> instead of redeclared...

See /usr/share/doc/libc6/README.Debian.gz.

-- 
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting.  Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

libc6-dev conflicting with kernel-source

[Bruno Diniz de Paula]

Hi guys,

I'm writting a program that deals with some kernel structures (defined
on the kernel source includes), as well as with some definitions from
libc6-dev under asm/... and linux/... The problem is that some of the
symbols are duplicated and, what is worse, with different definitions.
What would be a solution for this? I mean, why glibc also defines
something that is strictly related to the kernel itself? I thought that
everything inside libc6 concerning kernel stuff was taken directly from
the kernel source includes instead of redeclared...

Thanks,

Bruno.
-- 
Bruno Diniz de Paula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rutgers University


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: cannot apt-get libc6-dev

[Jason N. Price]

Well, I swapped out the RAM for some other RAM that I know is good.  Ended 
up with the same problem, but different packages.   Now, it's some gmc and 
gnome packages.  This is driving me nuts.  One of the reasons I went with 
Debian was for it's package system, and it's failing me...   :(


Any other ideas?


At 12:59 AM 2/25/2001 -0600, Jason N. Price wrote:
If the RAM were flaking out, why would it just fail on one package and the 
same package every time?  I would think it would fail more frequently and 
randomly.  I'm not saying that can't be it, just not the behavior I would 
expect in that situation.  I'll try swapping out the RAM tomorrow just to 
test it out.  Thanks for the input...


Anyone else have any thoughts?

At 09:34 PM 2/24/2001 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:


On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, Jason N. Price wrote:

> as there are a lot of dependencies on it.  Without it installed, I can't
> install a lot of other things.  I have tried getting it from the cd as 
well

> as via HTTP, but the error is the same either way.  The error is:

Sounds like you might have flaky RAM or kernel or something.

It means that the file is corrupt. If the file is not actually corrupt,
the it got corrupt as it was read in, flaky RAM.

Jason


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a 
subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cannot apt-get libc6-dev

[Jason N. Price]

If the RAM were flaking out, why would it just fail on one package and the 
same package every time?  I would think it would fail more frequently and 
randomly.  I'm not saying that can't be it, just not the behavior I would 
expect in that situation.  I'll try swapping out the RAM tomorrow just to 
test it out.  Thanks for the input...


Anyone else have any thoughts?

At 09:34 PM 2/24/2001 -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:


On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, Jason N. Price wrote:

> as there are a lot of dependencies on it.  Without it installed, I can't
> install a lot of other things.  I have tried getting it from the cd as 
well

> as via HTTP, but the error is the same either way.  The error is:

Sounds like you might have flaky RAM or kernel or something.

It means that the file is corrupt. If the file is not actually corrupt,
the it got corrupt as it was read in, flaky RAM.

Jason


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: cannot apt-get libc6-dev

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, Jason N. Price wrote:

> as there are a lot of dependencies on it.  Without it installed, I can't 
> install a lot of other things.  I have tried getting it from the cd as well 
> as via HTTP, but the error is the same either way.  The error is:

Sounds like you might have flaky RAM or kernel or something.

It means that the file is corrupt. If the file is not actually corrupt,
the it got corrupt as it was read in, flaky RAM.

Jason

cannot apt-get libc6-dev

[Jason N. Price]

I am trying to install Debian (this has been pure hell so far) for about 
the 10th time and am suddenly having a problem apt-getting lib6c-dev.  I 
don't know what this program is, but it seems to be a system-vital thing, 
as there are a lot of dependencies on it.  Without it installed, I can't 
install a lot of other things.  I have tried getting it from the cd as well 
as via HTTP, but the error is the same either way.  The error is:


gzip:  stdin:  invalid compressed data--crc error
dpkg-deb:  subprocess gzip -dc returned error exit status 1
dpkg:  error processing 
/cdrom//dists/potato/main/binary-i386/devel/libc6-dev_2.1.3-13.deb (--unpack):

subprocess dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile returned error exit status 2

I have tried everything I can think of - reformat, reinstall, repartition, 
etc, but the problem remains.  Any ideas why this is happening?


Oh, and is there any way to tell apt-get where to download something from, 
other than removing it from sources.list?


I should have stuck with an easier distro...  :(

potato libc6 and libc6-dev update broke stuff

[Bostjan Muller]

Hi!

I have noticed that after upgrading potatos libc6 and libc6-dev package a few
days ago I cannot compile nor openssl nor openssh on that machine, but I have
compiled it from the same packages a day before the update. Can I fix this in
any way?

Thx in advance!

Bostjan
-- 
Boštjan Müller [NEONATUS], [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://neonatus.net/~neonatus
For my PGP key finger: [EMAIL PROTECTED], RSA id: 0x90178DBD, ICQ #:7506644
Celular: +386(0)41243189, Powered by Debian GNU/LiNUX , Student of VFUL
  Weird enough for government work.

Re: missing files in libc6-dev package?

[Colin Watson]

Pascal Hos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When trying to compile a kernel on a woody box, I figured out that there 
>are no files in /usr/include/asm/ . When checking on one of my potato 
>boxes it seems that they are part of the libc6-dev package, however this 
>is not the case for woody. The package does contain the asm directory 
>but no files.

Try upgrading to libc6-dev version 2.2-4, which should fix this problem.

-- 
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: missing files in libc6-dev package?

[Ben Collins]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 12:03:58PM -0500, Chris Gray wrote:
> >>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Hos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> Pascal> When trying to compile a kernel on a woody box, I figured
> Pascal> out that there are no files in /usr/include/asm/ . When
> Pascal> checking on one of my potato boxes it seems that they are
> Pascal> part of the libc6-dev package, however this is not the
> Pascal> case for woody. The package does contain the asm directory
> Pascal> but no files.
> 
> Pascal> Any suggestions?
> 
> Get the new libc6-dev.  This is a known bug that is fixed by now.  If
> the new libc6-dev is not there yet, head over to incoming.debian.org
> and get the .deb from there.

2.2-4 is the latest, and it is installed for i386 and sparc. None of the
other archs were affected by this problem.

-- 
 ---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  '
 `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'

Re: missing files in libc6-dev package?

[Chris Gray]

>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Hos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Pascal> When trying to compile a kernel on a woody box, I figured
Pascal> out that there are no files in /usr/include/asm/ . When
Pascal> checking on one of my potato boxes it seems that they are
Pascal> part of the libc6-dev package, however this is not the
Pascal> case for woody. The package does contain the asm directory
Pascal> but no files.

    Pascal> Any suggestions?

Get the new libc6-dev.  This is a known bug that is fixed by now.  If
the new libc6-dev is not there yet, head over to incoming.debian.org
and get the .deb from there.

Cheers,
Chris

missing files in libc6-dev package?

[Pascal Hos]

When trying to compile a kernel on a woody box, I figured out that there 
are no files in /usr/include/asm/ . When checking on one of my potato 
boxes it seems that they are part of the libc6-dev package, however this 
is not the case for woody. The package does contain the asm directory 
but no files.


Any suggestions?

Pascal Hos
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev and libstdc++2.9-dev

[J.H.M. Dassen \(Ray\)]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 11:24:44 -0600, matthschulz wrote:
> When I try to install g++ with dselect then I get following dependancy
> problems:
> 
> libc6-dev conflicts with libstdc++2.9-dev
> libstdc++2.9-dev depends on libc6-dev 

For potato, you need libstdc++2.10-dev rather than libstdc++2.9-dev.

HTH,
Ray
-- 
UNFAIR  Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried 
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY, 
UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS. 
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan  

libc6-dev and libstdc++2.9-dev

[matthschulz]

When I try to install g++ with dselect then I get following
dependancy problems:


libc6-dev conflicts with libstdc++2.9-dev
libstdc++2.9-dev depends on libc6-dev 


What am I missing here?

Matth

Re: libc6-dev versus libncurses4-dev

[Ulrich Hansmair]

On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, you wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:11:58AM +0100, Ulrich Hansmair wrote:
> > hi debian-freaks,
> > 
> > currently I installed potato with downloaded install-disks. Then I got me a
> > few tiny things like less,  with apt-get. I´ m not very experienced with
> > linux, but it worked fine.
> > 
> > Now I wanna compile me a kernel. So I got me all the needed packages 
> > (gcc,...).
> > As I wanna use "make menuconfig" I tried to install the package 
> > libncurses4-dev
> > (with dpkg -i). This resulted in a dependency error with package libc6-dev.
> > This dependency problem exists also the other way round.
> > 
> > What I m doing wrong? Even the --force-depends option of dpkg brought no
> > solution. Can anybody give me a hint?
> 
> Install both at once if you are using dpkg (dpkg -i foo.deb bar.deb ...).
> Or better yet, continue to use apt-get.
This was the solution. Thank you Ben.

So, if packages are mutual dependant they have to be installed at once? Is this
a bug or a feature? Do you have some background about this?

regards

uli

Re: libc6-dev versus libncurses4-dev

[Brian Servis]

*- On  4 Nov, Ulrich Hansmair wrote about "libc6-dev versus libncurses4-dev"
> hi debian-freaks,
> 
> currently I installed potato with downloaded install-disks. Then I got me a
> few tiny things like less,  with apt-get. I´ m not very experienced with
> linux, but it worked fine.
> 
> Now I wanna compile me a kernel. So I got me all the needed packages 
> (gcc,...).
> As I wanna use "make menuconfig" I tried to install the package 
> libncurses4-dev
> (with dpkg -i). This resulted in a dependency error with package libc6-dev.
> This dependency problem exists also the other way round.
> 
> What I m doing wrong? Even the --force-depends option of dpkg brought no
> solution. Can anybody give me a hint?
> 

Well libncurses4-dev does depend on libc6-dev:

Package: libncurses4-dev
Status: install ok installed
Priority: standard
Section: devel
Installed-Size: 1127
Maintainer: Galen Hazelwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Source: ncurses
Version: 4.2-3.4
Replaces: ncurses-developer
Provides: ncurses-dev, ncurses-developer, libncurses-dev
Depends: libncurses4, libc6-dev
^
Conflicts: ncurses, ncurses-developer, ncurses21-dev, ncurses-dev, 
libncurses-dev
Description: Developer's libraries and docs for ncurses
 This package contains the header files, static, and profiling
 libraries and symbolic links that developers using ncurses will need.


But libc6-dev does NOT depend on libncurses4-dev.  It does conflict with
an earlier version though.


Package: libc6-dev
Status: install ok installed
Priority: standard
Section: devel
Installed-Size: 7762
Maintainer: Joel Klecker 
Source: glibc
Version: 2.1.2-10
Replaces: ldso (<< 1.9.0-0), man-db (<= 2.3.10-41), gettext\
 (<= 0.10.26-1), ppp (<= 2.2.0f-24), libgdbmg1-dev (<= 1.7.3-24)
Provides: libc-dev
Depends: libc6 (= 2.1.2-10)
^^^
Recommends: c-compiler
Suggests: glibc-doc
Conflicts: libc-dev, libstdc++2.9-dev, libdl1-dev, libdb1-dev, \
libgdbm1-dev, libpthread0-dev, gcc (<= 2.7.2.3-1), \
libncurses4-dev (<< 4.2-3.1), libreadlineg2-dev (<< 2.1-13.1)
^
Description: GNU C Library: Development libraries and header files.
 Contains the symlinks, headers, and object files needed to compile
 and link programs which use the standard C library.


I would just use apt-get to install libncurses4-dev and it will pull in
libc6-dev and whatever else it needs:

apt-get install libncurses4-dev


HTH,

Brian Servis
-- 

Mechanical Engineering  |  Never criticize anybody until you  
Purdue University   |  have walked a mile in their shoes,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  because by that time you will be a
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis   |  mile away and have their shoes.

Re: libc6-dev versus libncurses4-dev

[Ben Collins]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 07:11:58AM +0100, Ulrich Hansmair wrote:
> hi debian-freaks,
> 
> currently I installed potato with downloaded install-disks. Then I got me a
> few tiny things like less,  with apt-get. I´ m not very experienced with
> linux, but it worked fine.
> 
> Now I wanna compile me a kernel. So I got me all the needed packages 
> (gcc,...).
> As I wanna use "make menuconfig" I tried to install the package 
> libncurses4-dev
> (with dpkg -i). This resulted in a dependency error with package libc6-dev.
> This dependency problem exists also the other way round.
> 
> What I m doing wrong? Even the --force-depends option of dpkg brought no
> solution. Can anybody give me a hint?

Install both at once if you are using dpkg (dpkg -i foo.deb bar.deb ...).
Or better yet, continue to use apt-get.

-- 
 ---===-=-==-=---==-=--
/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
` [EMAIL PROTECTED]  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
 `---=--===-=-=-=-===-==---=--=---'

libc6-dev versus libncurses4-dev

[Ulrich Hansmair]

hi debian-freaks,

currently I installed potato with downloaded install-disks. Then I got me a
few tiny things like less,  with apt-get. I´ m not very experienced with
linux, but it worked fine.

Now I wanna compile me a kernel. So I got me all the needed packages (gcc,...).
As I wanna use "make menuconfig" I tried to install the package libncurses4-dev
(with dpkg -i). This resulted in a dependency error with package libc6-dev.
This dependency problem exists also the other way round.

What I m doing wrong? Even the --force-depends option of dpkg brought no
solution. Can anybody give me a hint?

regards

uli

Re: libc6-dev confilicts with libstdc++2.9-dev?

[Ben Collins]

On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 11:00:35AM -0700, Emile Snyder wrote:
> Hrm.  I went and got my system all messed up messing with stuff that I
> shouldn't have, and now I'm trying to recover.  I can't seem to get gcc
> and g++ environments to play nice.
> 
> Does anyone have any pointers as to where to go with this?  Why does
> libc6-dev_2.1.2-0pre7.deb conflict with libstdc++2.9-dev_2.91.60-5.deb?
> But then when I try to remove libc6-dev first, and install libstdc++-dev,
> it says it depends on libc6-dev!  Ack.

The newest g++ (from gcc2.95) requires libstdc++2.10-dev, install that
instead (it's ok for libstdc++2.9 to stay, just not the -dev package).

Ben

libc6-dev confilicts with libstdc++2.9-dev?

[Emile Snyder]

Hrm.  I went and got my system all messed up messing with stuff that I
shouldn't have, and now I'm trying to recover.  I can't seem to get gcc
and g++ environments to play nice.

Does anyone have any pointers as to where to go with this?  Why does
libc6-dev_2.1.2-0pre7.deb conflict with libstdc++2.9-dev_2.91.60-5.deb?
But then when I try to remove libc6-dev first, and install libstdc++-dev,
it says it depends on libc6-dev!  Ack.

Please cc replies to me,

Thanks for your time,
-emile

---
ESR: I want to live in a world where software doesn't suck.
RMS: Any software that isn't free sucks.
Linus: I'm interested in free beer.
  - As reported by Elizabeth O. Coolbaugh of LWN 
from LinuxWorld Conference and Expo
---

Re: apt-get: libc6-dev: Depends:libc6

[Debian Mail]

> But I just installed libc6_2.0.7.19981211-6.deb

I also installed the newest libc6-dev
This solved the problem.

Stef

Re: apt-get: libc6-dev: Depends:libc6

[Martin Bialasinski]

>> "DM" == Debian Mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

DM> Sorry, but the following packages are broken - this means they have unmet
DM> dependencies:
DM> libc6-dev: Depends:libc6

DM> But I just installed libc6_2.0.7.19981211-6.deb

DM> So why does apt-get claim, that it's not there?

First do a dpkg -l libc6\* and check what is installed. Then check
with dpkg --print-avail libc6-dev that libc6-dev doen't depend on a
specific version of libc6 that you don't have installed.

Ciao,
Martin

apt-get: libc6-dev: Depends:libc6

[Debian Mail]

Doing apt-get update I get the following error:

Checking system integrity...dependency error
You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these.
Sorry, but the following packages are broken - this means they have unmet
dependencies:
  libc6-dev: Depends:libc6

But I just installed libc6_2.0.7.19981211-6.deb

So why does apt-get claim, that it's not there?

Stef

Re: libc6(-dev) version problem in slink

[Chris Gray]

Thanks for your reply.  Yes, you're right, I was accidentally mixing hamm
and slink because the mirror site I was using still has slink as frozen
and hamm as current.  I used slink base disks and then selected "current"
not realizing this was taking me to the hamm packages and so I was getting
version conflicts.

Chris

On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Chris Gray wrote:
> 
> > I've been having a problem installing Debian standard packages.
> > 
> > The version of libc6 installed from the base diskettes was 2.0.7v-1 but
> > the version of libc6-dev listed as available from the ftp site is 2.0.7t-1
> 
> This is strange.
> 
> In slink, libc6 and libc6-dev have version 2.0.7.19981211-6.
> In hamm, version was 2.0.7t-1, if I remember well.
> 
> If you have 2.0.7v-1, you probably installed slink when it was still in
> the frozen stage.
> 
> In this case the best thing to do would be to upgrade everything to
> slink, which is now stable.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 

Re: libc6(-dev) version problem in slink

[Santiago Vila Doncel]

On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Chris Gray wrote:

> I've been having a problem installing Debian standard packages.
> 
> The version of libc6 installed from the base diskettes was 2.0.7v-1 but
> the version of libc6-dev listed as available from the ftp site is 2.0.7t-1

This is strange.

In slink, libc6 and libc6-dev have version 2.0.7.19981211-6.
In hamm, version was 2.0.7t-1, if I remember well.

If you have 2.0.7v-1, you probably installed slink when it was still in
the frozen stage.

In this case the best thing to do would be to upgrade everything to
slink, which is now stable.

Thanks.

libc6(-dev) version problem in slink

[Chris Gray]

I've been having a problem installing Debian standard packages.

The version of libc6 installed from the base diskettes was 2.0.7v-1 but
the version of libc6-dev listed as available from the ftp site is 2.0.7t-1
and it won't install insisting on the corresponding version of libc6.
(I've noticed that most of what is on the base diskettes is more recent
than what's on the stable ftp site.)

What should I do?

1) track down libc6 2.0.7t-1 and install that
2) track down libc6-dev 2.0.7v-t and install that
3) force the install of libc6-dev 2.0.7t-1

adTHANKSvance
Chris

Re: libstdc++2.9-dev/libc6-dev incompatibility?

[J.H.M. Dassen]

On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 14:11:10 -0700, Maria Lynn Jason Rightley wrote:
> To use the new kernel within the framework of the stable distribution,
> I had to upgrade certain specific packages to the unstable, primarily
> netbase and sysutils.  Netbase and sysutils depended on libc6 and 
> libncurses4, and libc6 depended on apt.  
> 
> We also included libc6-dev, because we didn't think that we could compile
> the kernel without it.

The kernel doesn't use the C library; you shouldn't need libc6-dev to
compile the kernel.

> Finally, we got the kernel source for 2.2.1 in order to be able to compile
> the kernel.  

I'd strongly recommend you use "kernel-package" to build from a more recent
upstream kernel source like 2.2.5-ac6.

> That all went okay.  The problem is that I want to be able to use g77.
> g77 depends on g++, which depends on libstdc++2.9-dev.  Specifically,
> if I try to add g77 in dselect, the dependency list includes 
> libstdc++2.9-dev, and the specific dependency list for it reads as follows:
> 
> g++ depends on libstdc++2.9-dev (>= 2.91.60)
> libstdc++2.9-dev suggests stl-manual
> libc6-dev conflicts with libstdc++2.9-dev
> libstdc++2.9-dev depends on libc6-dev
> 
> which indicates that libstdc++2.9-dev both conflicts with and depends
> on libc6-dev -- I have no clue how to solve that.

You'll need to update to "unstable"'s g++ and g77, and use
libstdc++2.9-glibc2.1-dev rather than libstdc++2.9 .

HTH,
Ray
-- 
POPULATION EXPLOSION  Unique in human experience, an event which happened 
yesterday but which everyone swears won't happen until tomorrow.  
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan 

Re: libstdc++2.9-dev/libc6-dev incompatibility?

[Alec Smith]

I have successfully built Linux 2.2.5 on a Debian 2.1 system, and so far
it appears the various utils work without updating to unstable. I've had
colleagues who have been running the 2.1/2.2 kernels under Slink give the
same reports. Debian 2.0 on the other hand probably has some compatability
problems with 2.2.x.



On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Maria Lynn Jason Rightley wrote:

> 
> Hello all --
> 
> I have a dual processor Pentium II system, and I recently decided to 
> switch to the new version of SMP (the old version had been giving me
> problems).  That meant moving to the new kernel.  
> 
> To use the new kernel within the framework of the stable distribution,
> I had to upgrade certain specific packages to the unstable, primarily
> netbase and sysutils.  Netbase and sysutils depended on libc6 and 
> libncurses4, and libc6 depended on apt.  
> 
> We also included libc6-dev, because we didn't think that we could 
> compile the kernel without it. Finally, we got the kernel source for 
> 2.2.1 in order to be able to compile the kernel.  
> 
> That all went okay.  The problem is that I want to be able to use g77.
> g77 depends on g++, which depends on libstdc++2.9-dev.  Specifically,
> if I try to add g77 in dselect, the dependency list includes 
> libstdc++2.9-dev, and the specific dependency list for it reads as follows:
> 
> g++ depends on libstdc++2.9-dev (>= 2.91.60)
> libstdc++2.9-dev suggests stl-manual
> libc6-dev conflicts with libstdc++2.9-dev
> libstdc++2.9-dev depends on libc6-dev
> 
> which indicates that libstdc++2.9-dev both conflicts with and depends
> on libc6-dev -- I have no clue how to solve that.  Does anyone have
> any words of wisdom to offer on the subject? 
> 
> Maria Rightley
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
> 
> 

libstdc++2.9-dev/libc6-dev incompatibility?

[Maria Lynn Jason Rightley]

Hello all --

I have a dual processor Pentium II system, and I recently decided to 
switch to the new version of SMP (the old version had been giving me
problems).  That meant moving to the new kernel.  

To use the new kernel within the framework of the stable distribution,
I had to upgrade certain specific packages to the unstable, primarily
netbase and sysutils.  Netbase and sysutils depended on libc6 and 
libncurses4, and libc6 depended on apt.  

We also included libc6-dev, because we didn't think that we could 
compile the kernel without it. Finally, we got the kernel source for 
2.2.1 in order to be able to compile the kernel.  

That all went okay.  The problem is that I want to be able to use g77.
g77 depends on g++, which depends on libstdc++2.9-dev.  Specifically,
if I try to add g77 in dselect, the dependency list includes 
libstdc++2.9-dev, and the specific dependency list for it reads as follows:

g++ depends on libstdc++2.9-dev (>= 2.91.60)
libstdc++2.9-dev suggests stl-manual
libc6-dev conflicts with libstdc++2.9-dev
libstdc++2.9-dev depends on libc6-dev

which indicates that libstdc++2.9-dev both conflicts with and depends
on libc6-dev -- I have no clue how to solve that.  Does anyone have
any words of wisdom to offer on the subject? 

Maria Rightley

problems with libc6-dev?

[Mrpeabody]

I did an apt-get update and I got a package error with libc6-dev anyone
else get this?
-jeff

Re: compiling kernel 2.0.33, libc6-dev

[David Stern]

On Wed, 01 Apr 1998 15:11:41 PST, David Stern wrote:
>
> I didn't mean to imply that it was that important, but according to that READ
> ME (see "Debian's libc6 method"), it looks like that should've been changed b
> eginning with kernel-[headers,source]-2.0.32 .  That seems like such a minor 
> issue to upload all four kernel-[headers,source]-2.0.[32,33].  I think I'll s
> et the hold in dselect.

The dreaded self-correction.

Apparently, headers is alright, so I meant two packages, not four 
(kernel-source-2.0.[32,33]).

There's also a reference to libc5-dev in the description field of both 
headers packages (kernel-headers-2.0.[32,33]) which looks suspicious.  
(Should it be libc6-dev?)
-- 
David Stern  
--
 http://weber.u.washington.edu/~kotsya
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: compiling kernel 2.0.33, libc6-dev

[David Stern]

On 01 Apr 1998 16:00:51 CST, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"David" == David Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> David> Then does the kernel-* package information (whatever it's
> David> called) needs to be updated?
> --8> -
> David> Description: Linux kernel source. This package provides the
> David> source code for the Linux kernel, as well as the scripts that
> David> maintain the symbolic link /usr/src/linux). This also contains
> David> everything in the package kernel-headers-2.0.33, and thus if
> David> you install kernel-source-2.0.33 you do not also need to
> David> install kernel-headers-2.0.33.
> --8> -
> 
> *Groan*. Yes, I think so. Expect a new kernel-package in
> Incoming shortly.

I didn't mean to imply that it was that important, but according to that README 
(see "Debian's libc6 method"), it looks like that should've been changed 
beginning with kernel-[headers,source]-2.0.32 .  That seems like such a minor 
issue to upload all four kernel-[headers,source]-2.0.[32,33].  I think I'll set 
the hold in dselect.

I'd read that README previously, but didn't find it consistent.  Now it makes 
sense.  Thanks.

There is still one outstanding issue: dselect won't live up to the depend in 
libc6-dev and allow kernel-headers-2.0.32 to be uninstalled if 
kernel-headers-2.0.33 is installed.  Why is that?
-- 
David Stern  
--
 http://weber.u.washington.edu/~kotsya
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: compiling kernel 2.0.33, libc6-dev

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"David" == David Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

David> Then does the kernel-* package information (whatever it's
David> called) needs to be updated?
--8> -
David> Description: Linux kernel source. This package provides the
David> source code for the Linux kernel, as well as the scripts that
David> maintain the symbolic link /usr/src/linux). This also contains
David> everything in the package kernel-headers-2.0.33, and thus if
David> you install kernel-source-2.0.33 you do not also need to
David> install kernel-headers-2.0.33.
--8> -

*Groan*. Yes, I think so. Expect a new kernel-package in
 Incoming shortly.

manoj

__
$Id: README.headers,v 1.5 1998/03/05 22:44:57 srivasta Exp $

 This is the Debian GNU/Linux prepackaged version of the Linux kernel
 headers. Linux was written by Linus Torvalds
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others.

 This package was put together by Simon Shapiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, from
 sources retrieved from directories under
 ftp.cs.helsinki.fi:/pub/Software/Linux/Kernel/

 This package contains the Linux kernel header files. 


 Kernel Headers and libc6-dev package
 
 

Need for kernel include files
 === == === =
   
Even though GNU libc 2.0 (a.k.a. libc6) provides an uniform
 interface to C programmers, one should realize that it needs
 different underpinnings on different architectures and operating
 systems (remember, glibc2 is multi-OS).

glibc provides all the standard files that the C standard and
 POSIX require, and those in turn call in OS and platform specific
 headers as required transparently to the user. There is an a complete
 divorce of the kernel-level interface from the user-level interface:
 the application programmer does not need to know kernel level details
 at all.

 But this has been taken by some to mean that
 /usr/include/{linux,asm} would be superfluous, which is a technical
 impossibility given that glibc2 is not an architecture and OS
 specific library.

I do not believe it is easy for glibc to present an interface
 that does not match the underlying OS, and quite possibly people just
 punted. If there is a mismatch between the user level structures and
 the kernel level structures, then libc6 library shall have to install
 translating wrappers around system calls (not such a great idea for
 high performance systems). I can foresee cases where it would not be
 possible to implement these wrappers, given a sufficiently large set
 of architectures and OS's.

In the case of Linux, the kernel header files are the
 underpinnings of the architecture independent interface.

Take a simple general ANSI C include file like . This
 in turn includes /usr/include/errnos.h, which includes
 /usr/include/linux/errno.h, which in turn includes
 /usr/include/asm/errno.h. See? A simple, standard include file like
 , and one needs kernel include files for that.

   Traditional two symlink approach
   === === ===   

Under libc5, it was standard for part of the user interface to
 libc to be exported from the kernel includes, via /usr/include/linux
 and /usr/include/asm.  Traditionally, this was done by linking those
 two directories to the appropriate directories in
 /usr/src/linux/include.  This is the method documented in the install
 instructions for the kernel sources, even today.


   Why that is bad
   ===  == ===

Kernel headers no longer make sense exporting to user space
 (in early days of Linux, that was not true). It is beginning to get
 harder to synchronize the libc and the kernel headers as in the old
 days; now linking with the latest kernel headers may subtly break new
 code since the headers linked with are different from the compiled
 library. In addition, the specter of programs breaking with new
 kernel headers was preventing needed new features from being added to
 the kernel (and damping innovative experimentation in kernel
 development) (see appendix A for details).
  
Besides, the kernel itself no longer needs /usr/include/linux/* 
  at all, so keeping the libc and kernel headers the same aren't
  needed for kernel development.

The headers were included in Debian's libc5-dev after a rash
 of very buggy alpha kernel releases (1.3.7* or something like that)
 that proceeded to break compilations, etc.  Kernel versions are
 changed far more rapidly than libc is, and there are higher chances
 that people install a custom kernel than they install custom libc.

Add to that the fact th

Re: compiling kernel 2.0.33, libc6-dev

[David Stern]

On 01 Apr 1998 12:27:13 CST, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The kernel is delibrately independent of any kernel related
> header files you may have installed (or that libc6 uses). It is OK to
> compile 2.0.33 on your machine.

That's good.

> The newer kernel-source packages do not provide kernel-headers
> anymore, since the kernel-source package is architecture independent,
> and kernel-headers actually vary between architectures.

Then does the kernel-* package information (whatever it's called) needs 
to be updated?
  --8<-
  Description: Linux kernel source.
   This package provides the source code for the Linux kernel, as well
   as the scripts that maintain the symbolic link /usr/src/linux). This
   also contains everything in the package kernel-headers-2.0.33, and 
thus
   if you install kernel-source-2.0.33 you do not also need to install
   kernel-headers-2.0.33.  
  --8<-----

I still don't understand why libc6-dev depends on kernel-headers-2.0.32.
  I realize I'm almost certainly showing off my ignorance, but this 
seems highly counter-intuitive.  Would someone please briefly explain 
how a programming language library depends on (of all things) 
kernel-headers-2.0.32?  Call me what you will, this just seems silly.

I'd like to uninstall kernel-header-2.0.32 now that I have 
kernel-headers-2.0.33 and kernel-source-2.0.33 installed, but dselect 
won't let me.  Why do I still need kernel-headers-2.0.32?

I smell something fishy going on here.

> May I recommend kernel-package package from misc? It has been
> designed to minimize problems during a kernel compliation. Please do
> read /usr/soc/kernel-package/README.gz for step by step instructions
> and pitfalls. I shall include the Rationale for kernel-package below

I've used kernel-package several times and I think it's great.
-- 
David Stern  
--
 http://weber.u.washington.edu/~kotsya
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: compiling kernel 2.0.33, libc6-dev

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

The kernel is delibrately independent of any kernel related
 header files you may have installed (or that libc6 uses). It is OK to
 compile 2.0.33 on your machine.

The newer kernel-source packages do not provide kernel-headers
 anymore, since the kernel-source package is architecture independent,
 and kernel-headers actually vary between architectures.

May I recommend kernel-package package from misc? It has been
 designed to minimize problems during a kernel compliation. Please do
 read /usr/soc/kernel-package/README.gz for step by step instructions
 and pitfalls. I shall include the Rationale for kernel-package below

manoj
-- 
 What to say to annoy a performance artist: "Hey, I saw something just
 like that on The Gong Show!" Matt Groening
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

Advantages of using make-kpkg
-- -- - -

I have been asked several times about the advantages of using
 the kernel-package package over the traditional Linux way of hand
 compiling kernels, and I have come up with this list. This is off the
 top of my head, I'm sure to have missed points yet. Any additions
 welcomed.

 i) Convenience. I used to compile kernels manually, and it
involved a series of steps to be taken in order;
kernel-package was written to take all the required steps (it
has grown beyond that now, but essentially, that is what it
does). This is especially important to novices: make-kpkg
takes all the steps required to compile a kernel, and
installation of kernels is a snap.
ii) It allows you to keep multiple version of kernel images on
your machine with no fuss.
   iii) It has a facility for you to keep multiple flavours of the
same kernel version on your machine (you could have a stable
2.0.33 version, and a 2.0.33 version patched with the latest
drivers, and not worry about contaminating the modules in
/lib/modules)
iv) It knows that some architectures do not have vmlinuz (using
vmlinux instead), and other use zImage rather than bzImage,
and calls the appropriate target, and takes care of moving the
correct file into place.
 v) Several other kernel module packages are hooked into
kernel-package, so one can seamlessly compile, say, pcmcia
modules at the same time as one compiles a kernel, and be
assured that the modules so compiled are compatible.
vi) It enables you to use the package management system to keep
track of the kernels created. Using make-kpkg creates a .deb
file, and dpkg can track it for you. This facilitates the task
of other packages that depend on the kernel packages.
   vii) It keeps track of the configuration file for each kernel image
in /boot, which is part of the image package, and hence is
the kernel image and the configuration file are always
together.
  viii) It allows to create a package with the headers, or the
sources, also as a deb file, and enables the package
management system to keep track of those (and there are
packages that depend on the package management system being
aware of these packages)
ix) Since the kernel image package is a full fledged Debian
package, it comes with maintainer scripts, which take care of
details like offering to make a boot disk, manipulating
symbolic links in / so that you can make boot loader scripts
static (just refer to the symbolic links, rather than the real
image files; the names of the symbolic links do not change,
but the kernel image file names change with the version)
 x) There is support for the multitudinous sub architectures that
have blossomed under the umbrella of the m68k architecture.
xi) There is support there for optionally applying patches to the
kernel provided as a kernel-patch .deb file, and building a
patched kernel auto-magically, and still retain an UN-patched
kernel source tree


   Disadvantages of using make-kpkg
   - -- - -

  i) This is a cookie cutter approach to compiling kernels, and
 there are people who like being close to the bare metal.
 ii) This is not how it is done in the non-Debian world. This
 flouts tradition. (It has been pointed out, though, that this
 is fast becoming Debian tradition)
iii) It forces you to use fakeroot or sudo or super or be root to
 create a kernel image .deb file (this is not as bad as it
 used to be before fakeroot)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

compiling kernel 2.0.33, libc6-dev

[David Stern]

Hi,

The 2.0.32 kernel did wonderful things for my adaptec 2940-uw, but 
2.0.33 has been out for quite a while now, and I was thinking about 
compiling a new kernel.  I'm not at all sure how libc6-dev 's 
dependency on "stable" 2.0.32 kernel-headers pertains to compiling a 
2.0.33 kernel.  Is 2.0.33 implicitly "unstable", or can someone please 
clarify this matter?

Also, why does the libc6-dev maintainer say that kernel-source does not 
provide kernel-headers, when the packages say that they do (in bug 
track)?

Are there any other issues I should be aware of when compiling a 2.0.33 
kernel, like bugs, or a new compiler I should be using?
-- 
David Stern  
--
 http://weber.u.washington.edu/~kotsya
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev dependencies

[Bill Leach]

Someone else will correct me if I have not really understood this
correctly.  As I understand it, the issue is that the kernel header
files are pretty volatile but that the overwhelming majority of
applications written deal with pretty 'standard' kernel functions.

The header files were 'breaking' the compile for application compiled
against the newer header when 'extensions' had been added to existing
functions.

So the header files were severing two groups of people with
significantly different needs:  The kernel hacker group, needing the
header files that exactly correspond to the kernel in use and the
applications people that want (and need) a 'stable target'.  The
'solution' then, as I understand it, is to periodically choose a
specific set of kernel header files as representative of the series.

-- 
best,
-bill
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
from a 1996 Micro$loth ad campaign:
"The less you know about computers the more you want Micro$oft!"
 See!  They do get some things right!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

libc6-dev dependencies

[Matt Thompson]

Why does libc6-dev depend specifically on kernel-headers 2.0.32?  Why
won't 2.0.33 suffice, or kernel-source-2.0.33?  It seems that I should
only have to have one of any of the kernel headers/source packages
installed at any one time.

Thanks,
Matt


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6-dev and kernel headers

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,
>>"Bob" == Bob Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Bob> I have had kernel-source-2.0.32 installed, and have just
Bob> installed kernel-source-2.0.33.  libc6-dev can not be configured
Bob> because it wants kernel-headers-2.0.32.  I want to keep
Bob> kernel-source-2.0.32 installed; is it really necessary to install
Bob> the headers as well?

Yes. Kernel-sources are arch independent, and are not enough
 to satisfy the libc requirements on all architectures. 

Bob> In /usr/src, linux and linux-2.0.33 are symlinks to
Bob> kernel-source-2.0.33, and linux-2.0.32 is a symlink to
Bob> kernel-source-2.0.32.  Would it satisfy the dependencies if I
Bob> made the symlink 'linux' point to kernel-source-2.0.32?  If so,
Bob> would that interfere with using kernel-package?

Umm, no, not with the latest libc6-dev, this would have no
 effect. 

Please look at /usr/doc/kernel-source-2.0.33/README.headers
 for a more detailed explanation.

manoj
-- 
 "It's a very valuable function and requirement that you're
 performing, so have a great day and keep a stiff upper lip." Dan
 Quayle, Prince William Sound, May 1989
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble?  E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

libc6-dev and kernel headers

[Bob Hilliard]

 I have had kernel-source-2.0.32 installed, and have just
installed kernel-source-2.0.33.  libc6-dev can not be configured
because it wants kernel-headers-2.0.32.  I want to keep
kernel-source-2.0.32 installed; is it really necessary to install the
headers as well?

 In /usr/src, linux and linux-2.0.33 are symlinks to
kernel-source-2.0.33, and linux-2.0.32 is a symlink to
kernel-source-2.0.32.  Would it satisfy the dependencies if I made the
symlink 'linux' point to kernel-source-2.0.32?  If so, would that
interfere with using kernel-package?

-- 
   _
  |_)  _  |_   Robert D. Hilliard<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  |_) (_) |_)  Palm City, FL  USAPGP Key ID: A8E40EB9


--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble?  E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: libc6-dev and kern-source-2.0.33

[Tommi Virtanen]

On Sun, Jan 04, 1998 at 01:29:20PM -0500, Jim Foltz wrote:
> libc6-dev depends on either >= kernel-source-2.0.32-2 or
>  >= kernel-headers-2.0.32-2 or greater, neither of which are
> available. But, I have the Linux kernel sources for 2.0.33. So, I made
> a kernel-source-2.0.33 package with make-kpkg kernel_source and
> installed it -- thinking this would clear up libc6-dev dependency on
> kernel-source 2.0.32, but it did not.
> 
> Why didn't installing my own custom kernel-source-2.0.33 package clear
> up this dependency problem?

Because libc6-dev explicitly needs headers from
kernel-source-2.0.32 -- that's the package name,
not including the version number.
Try using kernel-{source,headers}-2.0.32.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

libc6-dev and kern-source-2.0.33

[Jim Foltz]

Hello,

After looking around in the unstable distribution I decided
here were a few packages that I just couldn't do without. I managed to
install libc6, ldso, and a few other new packages with little problem
using the helpful libc6 HOWTO.

libc6-dev depends on either >= kernel-source-2.0.32-2 or
 >= kernel-headers-2.0.32-2 or greater, neither of which are
available. But, I have the Linux kernel sources for 2.0.33. So, I made
a kernel-source-2.0.33 package with make-kpkg kernel_source and
installed it -- thinking this would clear up libc6-dev dependency on
kernel-source 2.0.32, but it did not.

Why didn't installing my own custom kernel-source-2.0.33 package clear
up this dependency problem?





--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

RE: libc6-dev depends on kernel-headers-2.0.32-2

[Orn E. Hansen]

Þann 02-Jan-98 skrifar Tim Bell:
> Okay, I read the libc6 mini-HOWTO (thanks Scott), and it's worked until
> I got to installing libc6-dev 2.0.6-2, which depends on kernel-headers
> (or kernel-source) 2.0.32-2 or greater, which I can't seem to find
> anywhere. (ftp.debian.org only has 2.0.32-1, dated Dec 9.)
> 
> Any ideas here? (I was tempted to do a --force, but I remembered Scott's
> advice to NEVER do a --force when upgrading to libc6, so I'm stuck.)
> 
  Yeah, well... you can install kernel-headers 2.0.32-1, which is available,
and which installs cleanly, and then do the force.


Orn Einar Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice+fax; +46 035 217194


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

libc6-dev depends on kernel-headers-2.0.32-2

[Tim Bell]

Okay, I read the libc6 mini-HOWTO (thanks Scott), and it's worked until
I got to installing libc6-dev 2.0.6-2, which depends on kernel-headers
(or kernel-source) 2.0.32-2 or greater, which I can't seem to find
anywhere. (ftp.debian.org only has 2.0.32-1, dated Dec 9.)

Any ideas here? (I was tempted to do a --force, but I remembered Scott's
advice to NEVER do a --force when upgrading to libc6, so I'm stuck.)

Thanks,

Tim.
-- 
Tim Bell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Dept of Comp Sci - Uni of Melbourne, Australia


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

libc6-dev and kernel-stuff question

[Tim Ferrell]

Okay - I bet this has been asked before and, if so, my apologies... 

I just finished my upgrade to hamm and have a few pkgs that will not
configure due to dependance on libc6-dev which refuses to configure due
to dependance on the kernel-headers (or kernel-source) package version
2.0.32-2 that does not seem to be available... where can I find
kernel-headers-2.0.32_2.0.32-2.deb?

TIA
Tim

-- 
## #   # #  # #   #
## ##  # #  #  # # Debian GNU Linux
## # # # #  #   #
## #  ## #  #  # # Power to the people...
 # #   #  ##  #   # 

E-Mail:   Tim Ferrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  




--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

libc6-dev problems

[Remco van de Meent]

Hey


Very often, when compiling programs, I get errors with redefines, like this:

In file included from /usr/include/linux/fs.h:12,
 from /usr/include/linux/sched.h:73,
 from pthread.h:26,
 from pthread.c:24:
/usr/include/linux/wait.h:4: warning: `WNOHANG' redefined
/usr/include/waitflags.h:25: warning: this is the location of the previous 
definition
/usr/include/linux/wait.h:5: warning: `WUNTRACED' redefined
/usr/include/waitflags.h:26: warning: this is the location of the previous 
definition

Both wait.h and waitflags.h are from the libc6-dev package.

Is there any workaround for these things, because sometimes they even end up
in compilation errors (mostly with signal.h-related things). 


bye, Remco


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .