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 using it—it has to be listed in > /etc/ld.so.cache for that to happen.
Are you sure about that? My botched upgrade left me without /etc/ld.so.cache in place and the system appeared mostly functional: the main problem I saw was a refusal to execute a few self-compiled binaries (relying on shared libraries in non-standard places) and probably a number of GUI-related stuff (fonts were wrong size and so on). But overall it was a "slightly defective but overall workable" situation until I figure out I'd better run `ldconfig`. So there must be a healthy dose of standard locations that are consulted in the absence of the cache file. -- David Kastrup -- 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 busy" To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1943124/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
