Re: [arch-general] pacman changes libcrypt.so.1 symlink

2008-05-08 Thread Xavier
Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: Thanks, so now I've to find some solutions to this. In the worst case I can make ldconfig wrapper. man ldconfig : -l Library mode. Manually link individual libraries. Intended for use by experts only. I don't know what does that do and how to use it but

Re: [arch-general] pacman changes libcrypt.so.1 symlink

2008-05-08 Thread Lukáš Jirkovský
Yeah, but it glibc compiling much processor time. I've made small shell wrapper for ldconfig and it works. Maybe the best solution would be adding blowfish support to glibc's libcrypt itself. 2008/5/8 Xavier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: Thanks, so now I've to find some solutions

Re: [arch-general] pacman changes libcrypt.so.1 symlink

2008-05-08 Thread Dimitrios Apostolou
On Thursday 08 May 2008 13:10:02 Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: Yeah, but it glibc compiling much processor time. I've made small shell wrapper for ldconfig and it works. Maybe the best solution would be adding blowfish support to glibc's libcrypt itself. Yet another external patch for glibc?

[arch-general] pacman changes libcrypt.so.1 symlink

2008-05-07 Thread Lukáš Jirkovský
Hi I don't know if it's bug or feature, but it makes me crazy. It begun probably after some pacman upgrade. I'm using blowfish passwords with my archlinux, so my /lib/libcrypt.so.1 points to libxcrypt.so.1 instead of libcrypt-2.7.so from glibc. In my pacman.conf I have NoExtract =

Re: [arch-general] pacman changes libcrypt.so.1 symlink

2008-05-07 Thread RedShift
Xavier wrote: Lukáš Jirkovský wrote: Hi I don't know if it's bug or feature, but it makes me crazy. It begun probably after some pacman upgrade. I'm using blowfish passwords with my archlinux, so my /lib/libcrypt.so.1 points to libxcrypt.so.1 instead of libcrypt-2.7.so from glibc. In my

Re: [arch-general] pacman changes libcrypt.so.1 symlink

2008-05-07 Thread Alec Hussey
I had this same exact problem while either upgrading or installing a package(s) and I simply removed it (which I was almost sure would break something anyway) and reran pacman and it seemed to work fine. Although I probably wouldnt recommend doing it because it could possibly affect one package