Ah yes that would do it. I wonder how that symlink got there -- I'm
pretty sure it was not created by any official part of Ubuntu. (A bit of
googling finds people doing things like this
https://github.com/remap/ndnfs-port/issues/8 but it's not clear to me
where they got the idea from).
We might
I think I found the culprit in my setup. The libc6 package (amd64) contains a
symlink:
./lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
On my system I have a symlink to the whole folder:
/usr/lib64 -> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
On another newer installation I can see
I had a similar issue yesterday - not during release upgrade but when
installing package updates (Ubuntu 21.10):
package libc6 2.34-0ubuntu3.2 failed to install/upgrade: unable to open
'/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.dpkg-new': Text file busy
The way I resolve it is via dual-boot, I
I also have the same issue here. Additional information I can offer is
that I already has a weird situation when upgrading to 21.04, something
of the usrmerge went wrong and I ended up not having a working ld. Not
sure this is related, anyway.
Here's the output of running dpkg:
(Reading database
I have the same problem while upgrading from Ubuntu 21.04 to 21.10
Outputs of:
strace -f -E --decode-fds=paths -o /tmp/dpkg-unpack-libc6.trace dpkg --unpack
-D2000 --log=/tmp/dpkg-unpack-libc6.log /tmp/libc6_2.34-0ubuntu3_amd64.deb
** Attachment added: "Output of strace dpkg --unpack
** Attachment added: "libc6-upgrade-diags.tar.bz2"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1943124/+attachment/5533524/+files/libc6-upgrade-diags.tar.bz2
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Maybe try ubuntu-bug libc6 then, which will file a new bug -- but that's
OK in this context I think.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1943124
Title:
Upgrade fails due to "text file
apport-collect shows me that i'm not the reporter or subscriber of this
problem report...
# apt install -o dpkg::options::=-D7200 -f
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Correcting dependencies... Done
The following packages were
Oh huh. Can you run "apt install -f" with dpkg logging jacked all the
way up? I thought that "apt install -o dpkg::options::=-D7200 -f" would
do this but according to David this wasn't quite the right invocation.
Also running apport-collect 1943124 should attach some basic information
about your
I have the same problem after do-release-upgrade -d. Can provide some
additional info if you need it
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1943124
Title:
Upgrade fails due to "text file
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: glibc (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1943124
Title:
Totally fair, and thanks for the information you have provided.
Hopefully this was something more or less unique to your system...
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1943124
Title:
It was not an option to keep my system broken for longer, so I mounted
my system disk to a working Ubuntu installation and used 'dpkg
--root=/mnt --force-script-chrootless -i ...' from there for getting
libc installed, after which a native apt install -f was able to take it
from there.
Let's hope
Not really? It's just
apt install -o dpkg::options::=-D7200 -f
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Correcting dependencies... Done
The following additional packages will be installed:
libc-bin libc6
The following packages will be
Well the strace output helps a bit but still doesn't really make sense.
Can you try "apt install -o dpkg::options::=-D7200 -f" and attach the
output? It will be quite large I think.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Downgraded libc-bin to Focal, then did apt --fix-broken install . It
attempted to install both libc-bin and libc6 and failed with the same
error as previously while I didn't get the loader complaint associated
with not being able to run /usr/bin/locale .
So the inability to execute
Hi, yes, I got the logs thanks. Haven't had time to more than glance at
them so far, hopefully can spend some time with them tomorrow.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1943124
Title:
I did and sent the tar file encrypted to your Gmail account. Hope you
got it.
Another thing: libc6-bin is already installed in the new version, and
calling `locale` gives an error message like
locale: /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.34' not
found (required by locale)
The
Well this is very strange. Can you try running strace-ing the apt
install -f invocation (something like "strace -ff -o apt.trace apt
--fix-broken install" and sending me all the apt.trace.* files)?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed
Ok, here is another possible problem source: I just did 'ls /etc/ld*' by
accident and got this:
$ ls /etc/ld*
/etc/ld.so.conf /etc/ld.so.nohwcap
/etc/ldap:
ldap.conf
/etc/ld.so.conf.d:
fakeroot-i386-linux-gnu.confi386-linux-gnu.conf libc.conf
x86_64-linux-gnu.conf
Additional info: switched in the BIOS to single CPU with no
hyperthreading and booted into recovery mode (and checked with cat
/proc/cpuinfo that there was only a single CPU present to Linux). No
change, still bombed out with the same error on apt --fix-broken install
. So if there is a race
Here you are.
I actually got here via `do-release-update -d` (I tried adding a few
packages manually via `dpkg` afterwards to get out of the current bad
situation but they are likely not having much of an impact on the logs).
If you say this may be a race condition, should I try reducing the
Can I ask how you updated? I made a hirsute container and ran do-
release-upgrade -d and didn't hit this, and I haven't seen any instances
of this in e.g. autopkgtests or builds that upgrade from libc 2.33 to
2.34 within impish. But I can see how this might be some kind of race,
and I guess it
To me, the clue is the ETXTBSY for ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.dpkg-new (with
the suffix). I can't quite see how this could become used without a
reference from /etc/ld.so.cache. And I think according to the ldconfig
heuristic, ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.dpkg-new is considered a newer version
than
Florian Weimer <1943...@bugs.launchpad.net> writes:
> The ldconfig aspect is just a guess on my part. Assuming that
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.dpkg-new was not created by
> renaming of /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so, it is unclear to
> me how a process would end up
The ldconfig aspect is just a guess on my part. Assuming that
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2.dpkg-new was not created by
renaming of /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-linux-x86-64.so, it is unclear to
me how a process would end up using it—it has to be listed in
/etc/ld.so.cache for that to
Some more info:
After the upgrade fails, there is no '/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ld-
linux-x86-64.so.2.dpkg-new' and there is no '/etc/ld.so.cache', meaning
that I need to run 'ldconfig' to get back a mostly working system.
With no '/etc/ld.so.cache' after the failure (even if you started with
one
Is it possible that this is a result of running ldconfig early, before
the `.dpkg-new` files have been renamed into place? If yes, can you stop
doing that? If not, we could perhaps teach ldconfig to ignore .dpkg-new
files. See _dl_is_dso in elf/dl-is_dso.h.
This may have been a result of the
28 matches
Mail list logo
