LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Red Hat
User Name
Password
Red Hat This forum is for the discussion of Red Hat Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 01-10-2005, 11:05 PM   #1
martianpackets
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Distribution: $ uname -snrvmo Linux martianpackets 3.13.0-29-generic #53-Ubuntu SMP Jun 4 2014 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Posts: 13

Rep: Reputation: 0
problem installing glibc-2.3.2-4.80.i686, glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm


First I am running rh 8.0. I'm not ready to upgrade my laptop to FC2. I need glibc > 2.3.2 however to use programs such as Firefox 1.0.

So, I have managed to upgrade most of the suite:

Code:
# rpm -qa| grep glibc 
glibc-2.2.93-5
glibc-debug-2.3.2-4.80.8
glibc-profile-2.3.2-4.80.8
glibc-devel-2.3.2-4.80.8
glibc-utils-2.3.2-4.80.8
glibc-kernheaders-2.4-7.20
glibc-debug-static-2.3.2-4.80.8
and Firefox 1.0 does run now (amazingly)... but, I cannot upgrade glibc-2.2 to 2.3.2 due to failed dependency on glibc-common, and I cannot install glibc-common. Here's what I get:

Code:
# rpm -ivh glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm --force --nodeps
Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
   1:glibc-common           ########################################### [100%]
error: unpacking of archive failed on file /usr/lib/locale: cpio: unlink failed - Operation not permitted
I've searched high and low for a similar error to no avail. PLEASE don't tell me to upgrade my os to fedora, I'm not ready to do that yet. Does this have something to do with missing language settings, etc?

Code:
# set | grep LC
LC_ALL=C
LC_CTYPE=C
 
Old 01-11-2005, 02:07 AM   #2
acid_kewpie
Moderator
 
Registered: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Distribution: Gentoo, RHEL, Fedora, Centos
Posts: 43,414

Rep: Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966Reputation: 1966
why are yiou forcing the install?? if you have a circular dependency then just install them at teh same time, on the same command line. you should have a really good reason for using those RPM options.
 
Old 01-11-2005, 03:59 AM   #3
perfect_circle
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Distribution: Slackware, arch
Posts: 1,783

Rep: Reputation: 52
I don't know how you did it but you have to respect the dependencies:

What you should do ( i did this when i had rh8.0 to install firefox) is:

rpm -qa| grep glibc

you should see:

all packages in the same version:

glibc-<version>
glibc-common-<verdion>
.....
.....


Then you download the new version (3.2) of all the packages you have in 2.95.

And you do:
rpm -Fhv glibc*

USING --force --nodeps in an glibc package is suicide.... It's the single most important library in your system.Even bash uses it.

in your case since you made it so far download glibc and glibc-common
and install them together with
Code:
rpm -Fhv glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm


Last edited by perfect_circle; 01-11-2005 at 04:10 AM.
 
Old 01-12-2005, 05:09 PM   #4
martianpackets
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Distribution: $ uname -snrvmo Linux martianpackets 3.13.0-29-generic #53-Ubuntu SMP Jun 4 2014 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Posts: 13

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by acid_kewpie
why are yiou forcing the install?? if you have a circular dependency then just install them at teh same time, on the same command line.
I didn't try that -- it is a circular dependency.

OK dammit: I tried installing them both on the same line as suggested.

Code:
# rpm -Fvh glibc-2.3.2-4.80.8.i686.rpm glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8.i386.rpm

error: Failed dependencies:
        glibc-common = 2.3.2-4.80.8 is needed by glibc-2.3.2-4.80.8
nada. I tried swapping the order of the file names on the cmd line as well. Whutup with that?

Quote:
you should have a really good reason for using those RPM options.
My reasoning was that if I could force one of the packages, then the other would go. I admit it was risky but what the hell -- I got the RedHat 8 cd sitting right here, if I have to reinstall I can do that. This dumb circular dependency is a kludge.

Help?
 
Old 01-13-2005, 01:47 AM   #5
perfect_circle
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Athens, Greece
Distribution: Slackware, arch
Posts: 1,783

Rep: Reputation: 52
well try this:
rpm -Fhv glibc*

I'm pretty sure i did it this way.
 
Old 01-13-2005, 09:15 AM   #6
martianpackets
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2004
Location: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Distribution: $ uname -snrvmo Linux martianpackets 3.13.0-29-generic #53-Ubuntu SMP Jun 4 2014 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Posts: 13

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally posted by perfect_circle
well try this:
rpm -Fhv glibc*

I'm pretty sure i did it this way.
That's what I did in the first place. I do have

glibc-debug-2.3.2-4.80.8

installed, so I wonder if this is satisfying the need for glibc-2.3.2-4.80.8? In any case, I haven't encountered any problems yet. I'm going to attempt to install Thunderbird which I believe requires the same glibc version.

Still the question remains:

How do I get glibc-2.3.2-4.80.8 and glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8 installed? Again a query of my glibc rpms gives:

Code:
# rpm -qa | grep glibc
glibc-2.2.93-5
glibc-debug-2.3.2-4.80.8
glibc-profile-2.3.2-4.80.8
glibc-devel-2.3.2-4.80.8
glibc-utils-2.3.2-4.80.8
glibc-kernheaders-2.4-7.20
glibc-debug-static-2.3.2-4.80.8
 
Old 02-19-2005, 08:45 AM   #7
pinar
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: 0
Thumbs up

I downloaded glibc-common-2.3.2-4.80.8, glibc-devel-2.3.2-4.80.8 and glibc-2.3.2-4.80.8 all separately. Then followed perfect_circle's advice and typed rpm -Fhv glibc* it all went well and upgraded the glibc. Firefox has installed fine afterwards. Thanks everyone!
 
Old 07-04-2005, 12:31 AM   #8
JBull
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Distribution: Debian Etch
Posts: 37

Rep: Reputation: 15
Same problem, SOLVED!

I have had the same frustrating problem with the circular dependency. Tried just about everything. The solution is what perfect circle has posted.
Do this:

rpm -Fhv glibc*

And you've got it!
 
Old 05-01-2009, 03:22 PM   #9
abylin1
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 19

Rep: Reputation: 0
I am on RHEL4 and am facing a similar problem with the glibc and glibc-common circular dependencies. I have glibc-2.3.4-2.25.i686 and glibc-common-2.3.4-2.25.i386 installed, and I want to downgrade to glibc-2.3.2-95.39.i386 and glibc-common-2.3.2-95.39.i386.

When I ran the rpm -Fvh glibc* in my directory that contained the rpms I want to downgrade to, I get this:
warning: glibc-2.3.2-95.39.i386.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID db42a60e

Running the rpm -Fvh glibc* command didn't do anything, as I verified by doing an rpm -qa | grep glibc, it still showed the 2.3.4 versions as installed. I also tried listing out the rpms all on the same line but that output the same warning and did nothing.

What else can I try to downgrade these rpms?

Laura
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Error opening glibc-common-2.3.5-10.i386 on FC4 upgrade cklann Linux - Newbie 0 09-25-2005 08:16 AM
ncsd, glibc, and glibc-common conflicts during LAMP install beaker911 Linux - Software 0 12-30-2004 02:31 PM
Help! Installed the i686 kernel & glibc packages instead of the i386 version penguin_powered Linux - Newbie 3 04-11-2004 11:45 PM
Upgrade Glibc? Just pick one you like!! (i386/i686) greggy69 Linux - Software 1 11-27-2003 09:38 AM
RPM Upgrade (glibc-common) Linux4BC Linux - General 2 08-04-2003 10:20 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration