You are not logged in.

#1 2013-01-25 06:35:30

bwang8
Member
Registered: 2012-06-25
Posts: 5

Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

I haven't updated in a month since 12/24. I recently updated on 1/23. I didn't use any --force commands, only --ignore filesystem on the first pass. Right after pacman upgraded glibc, no executable can be ran. I found out it is because it removed the symbolic links /lib and /lib64. Is this suppose to happen? Why something so dramatic happened without force command?

Offline

#2 2013-01-25 06:37:10

Scimmia
Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 4,977

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

They were moved to the filesystem package that you ignored.

Remember, partial upgrades are not supported. When you're using the testing repo, you really need to follow the arch-dev-public mailing list.

Last edited by Scimmia (2013-01-25 06:38:41)

Offline

#3 2013-01-26 17:28:34

bwang8
Member
Registered: 2012-06-25
Posts: 5

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

Hi,

So I made an archiso live cd. Booted with it. Manually created the symlinks lib/ and lib64/. Then I chrooted into my original system. Now I am trying to upgrade both glibc and filesystem at once, with

pacman -U /var/cache/.../glibc-2.17-2... /var/cache/.../filesystem-2013.01-1...
(first, is it safe to do this? Is there something else I need to watch out for?)

It gives me

filesystem: /lib /lib64 /usr/lib64 exists in filesystem

I checked out /usr/lib64. It is just empty folders of some package that I have (fyi, they are tls and vdpau). According to the newest news item, I should update all of these packages first. Well, libvdpau didn't come out with a new package (the last one was in September), and I already have the newest gnutls (which is who I think the /usr/lib64/tls folder belongs to) version. In any case, I reinstalled them both, but the /usr/lib64 still exist. So I thought since they are empty, I just removed the folders. Is this safe?

So now I don't have any idea of how to get rid of /lib /lib64 conflicts without using --force. I think I am fine, since I created the symlinks myself. But I don't want to break my system again before asking for some advice on the forum, (especially since there is a fairly direct advice of NOT using --force in the news item). Is my situation a special case where I can use the --force?

Last edited by bwang8 (2013-01-26 17:30:02)

Offline

#4 2013-01-26 18:35:36

Mr.Elendig
#archlinux@freenode channel op
From: The intertubes
Registered: 2004-11-07
Posts: 3,727

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail … 24284.html
Read all posts in the thread.

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2013-01-26 18:36:05)


Evil #archlinux@freenode channel op and general support dude.
. files on github, Screenshots, Random pics and the rest

Offline

#5 2013-01-26 21:17:24

Scimmia
Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 4,977

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

Disclaimer: I am not an Arch dev, TU, or anyone particularity special. Follow this advice at your own risk.

This is a situation where I would use the --force option. You MUST make sure that /usr/lib64 does not exist because a symlink will be created for it as well. If it's already a directory with files in it and you force it to be replaced as a symlink, you're going to be in even worse shape. You know that /lib and /lib64 are symlinks and know why they're there outside of pacman's control. As long as those are the only conflicts you're getting, it SHOULD be safe to --force for this one.

Offline

#6 2013-01-26 22:05:11

Mr.Elendig
#archlinux@freenode channel op
From: The intertubes
Registered: 2004-11-07
Posts: 3,727

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

Scimmia wrote:

Disclaimer: I am not an Arch dev, TU, or anyone particularity special. Follow this advice at your own risk.

This is a situation where I would use the --force option. You MUST make sure that /usr/lib64 does not exist because a symlink will be created for it as well. If it's already a directory with files in it and you force it to be replaced as a symlink, you're going to be in even worse shape. You know that /lib and /lib64 are symlinks and know why they're there outside of pacman's control. As long as those are the only conflicts you're getting, it SHOULD be safe to --force for this one.

No, just no.

The Fine News™ wrote:

Remember, partial updates are not supported and never use the "--force" option...

A better solution would be to actually read the news, then remove the unowned files etc.

Last edited by Mr.Elendig (2013-01-26 22:07:16)


Evil #archlinux@freenode channel op and general support dude.
. files on github, Screenshots, Random pics and the rest

Offline

#7 2013-01-26 22:44:07

Scimmia
Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2012-09-01
Posts: 4,977

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

Mr.Elendig, if you say no, how about suggesting an actual solution? The news says nothing about fixing it after it's screwed up. If he removes the symlinks that he made, nothing will run at all, including pacman. Pacstrap might be an option, but you didn't mention that.

Last edited by Scimmia (2013-01-26 22:44:19)

Offline

#8 2013-01-28 11:55:13

bwang8
Member
Registered: 2012-06-25
Posts: 5

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

Thanks for all your help, Scimmia. I managed to fix my system.

In case anyone else have the exact same problem as me, after I used --force to upgrade both filesystem and glibc, I met an error message saying that my root partition can not be found. Just follow the instructions through this link:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pa … onger_boot

There is one thing that I am still worried about. Everything runs fine now, and I haven't seen any problems stemming from this yet. Before I messed up my system and right after upgrading glibc, no executable can be ran, so every package that I upgraded afterwards resulted in some failure. Is this failure important?

(  3/182) upgrading desktop-file-utils             [######################] 100%
(  4/182) upgrading linux-api-headers              [######################] 100%
(  5/182) upgrading glibc                          [######################] 100%
warning: /etc/locale.gen installed as /etc/locale.gen.pacnew
call to execv failed (No such file or directory)
error: command failed to execute correctly
(  6/182) upgrading gcc-libs                       [######################] 100%
call to execv failed (No such file or directory)
error: command failed to execute correctly
(  7/182) upgrading soundtouch                     [######################] 100%
(  8/182) upgrading audacity                       [######################] 100%
call to execv failed (No such file or directory)
...

Last edited by bwang8 (2013-01-29 01:45:16)

Offline

#9 2013-01-29 00:51:00

HungGarTiger
Member
From: nz/auckland/
Registered: 2012-06-27
Posts: 186

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

bwang8 wrote:

Thanks for all your help, Scimmia. I managed to fix my system.

In case anyone else have the exact same problem as me, after I used --force to upgrade both filesystem and glibc, I met an error message saying that my root partition can not be found. Just follow the instructions through this link:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pa … onger_boot

There is one thing that I am still worried about. I haven't seen any problems stemming from this yet. Right after upgrading glibc, no executable can be ran, so every package that I upgraded afterwards resulted in some failure. Is this failure important?

I wouldn't recommend using the -force command, the news and Mr.Elendig explicitly say this is a bad idea. The fact that none of your executable files run is testamount to that. I don't have much of an idea how to fix it I am just throwing in my opinion so that anyone coming across this thread in the future wont follow your advice on using the -force command.

also please use the [ code ] [ /code ] tags when posting output, it makes it easier on the eyes

Last edited by HungGarTiger (2013-01-29 00:52:08)


"No sympathy for the devil. If you buy the ticket, take the ride."
- Hunter S. Thompson

Offline

#10 2013-01-29 01:50:43

bwang8
Member
Registered: 2012-06-25
Posts: 5

Re: Is the new glibc package suppose to remove /lib and /lib64 links?

HungGarTiger

I think you misunderstood. I have already fixed all my problems. My executable files not being able to run was my problem that I fixed. That was because I updated my filesystem and glibc separately. That removed my symlinks /lib and /lib64.

Yes, I think you are right that people shouldn't use --force lightly. I was extremely hesitant in using it, since exactly as you said, the news and Elendig adviced against it. But I think there is some special case that it is justified to use it. Maybe not for newbie like me, but at that time, I saw no way to solve my problem without using --force.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB