Re: contention for /usr/lib64 in libc6 and base-files
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 01:59:08AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> If you're using the pure64 archive it's safe to use the
> --force-overwrite dpkg option to fix this:
> dpkg --force-overwrite -i /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-19.0.0.1.pure64_amd64.deb
>
> You'll also need to do this for the base-files package which will
> give you the same warning.
You are recomending using force-overwrite? That's just icky. :) I
thought we got past package problems requiring that kind of brute force
when potato was in the works.
> That was an older version of the base-files package which just
> didn't have the symlinks in it. This new version was supposed
> not to have them in it either but unfortunaly does have them. So
> they now end up with 2 package that provide them.
>
> It was supposed to transition properly from the link in the
> base-files packages to the libc6 pacakge but as you can see this
> failed.
>
> There are 2 reasons for this:
> - The base-files package still has the symlinks left.
> - The libc6 package does not say it's replacing the files from
> base-files. When we tested this worked for us because we have
> a version of dpkg that has a /etc/dpkg/dpkg.conf file that
> turns on force-overwrite by default. It looks like it only
> installs that file on new installations of dpkg.
>
> So this will require us to change both packages again.
Maybe tests for things as important as base-files and libc6 should be
testing in a clean chroot that doesn't have crazy non standard options
set that no normal user would have enabled on their system. But then
again no one is claiming pure64 is stable or anything, and debian proper
has done worse than this at times. Just some of the fun little bumps do
deal with.
Len Sorensen
Reply to: