Could someone please take a look at this? Not sure if it's a klibc
regression or that it's just something that requires fixing on
our side.
CCing maks in case he has any ideas.
Cheers,
FJP
$ dpkg -l libklibc-dev | grep ^ii
ii libklibc-dev 1.5.16-1
make[2]: Entering directory
`/home/fjp/pr
Thanks for the quick reply maks!
On Saturday 20 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> > $ dpkg -l libklibc-dev | grep ^ii
> > ii libklibc-dev 1.5.16-1
>
> dpkg -l libklibc-dev |grep ^ii
> ii libklibc-dev1.5.17-1
Yes, saw your blog post. Will try
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:25:34PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> Could someone please take a look at this? Not sure if it's a klibc
> regression or that it's just something that requires fixing on
> our side.
>
> CCing maks in case he has any ideas.
>
> Cheers,
> FJP
>
> $ dpkg -l libklibc-dev | gre
hello fjp,
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:43:38PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>
> Yes, saw your blog post. Will try with that when it hits my local mirror.
thanks for testing!
> > which arch is that on?
>
> amd64
>
> $ dpkg -l linux-libc-dev | grep ^ii
> ii linux-libc-dev 2.6.32-1
On Sunday 21 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> > $ dpkg -l linux-libc-dev | grep ^ii
> > ii linux-libc-dev 2.6.32-10
>
> ok I have similar, the 2.6.32-9 verison on amd64,
> so should work fine.
Still get the same errors with
ii libklibc 1.5.17-2 minimal libc subset
On Sunday 21 March 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 21 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > $ dpkg -l linux-libc-dev | grep ^ii
> > > ii linux-libc-dev 2.6.32-10
> >
> > ok I have similar, the 2.6.32-9 verison on amd64,
> > so should work fine.
>
> Still get the same erro
On Sunday 21 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> ok would need info on the missing symlinks:
>
> ls -l /usr/lib/klibc/include/linux
> and
> ls -l /usr/lib/klibc/include/asm*
I think that's the problem. They're not symlinks, but empty directories.
Looks like a bug in the upgrade?
$ ls -dl /usr
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:35:06PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 21 March 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > > $ dpkg -l linux-libc-dev | grep ^ii
> > > > ii linux-libc-dev 2.6.32-10
> > >
> > > ok I have similar, the 2.6.32-9
On Sunday 21 March 2010, Frans Pop wrote:
> I think that's the problem. They're not symlinks, but empty directories.
A purge and re-install gets me symlinks.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debia
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 03:23:45PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 21 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> > ok would need info on the missing symlinks:
> >
> > ls -l /usr/lib/klibc/include/linux
> > and
> > ls -l /usr/lib/klibc/include/asm*
>
> I think that's the problem. They're not symlin
On Sunday 21 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> please reportbug
Done.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201003211850.24933.elen...@planet.nl
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 06:50:24PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 21 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> > please reportbug
>
> Done.
fixed in 1.5.17-4, will ask to unblock this one for testing migration
soon. any current constraints concerning that timeline from d-i?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
On Sunday 21 March 2010, maximilian attems wrote:
> fixed in 1.5.17-4, will ask to unblock this one for testing migration
> soon. any current constraints concerning that timeline from d-i?
Nope. We currently don't have any boot floppies, so rootskel-bootfloppy
isn't really used.
But we should st
13 matches
Mail list logo
