On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 10:49:38AM -0400, MW Mike Weiner (5028) wrote: > From: Ed Wilts [mailto:ewilts@xxxxxxxxxx] > > > Note, however, that all you currently see in that bug report is reports > > from users - there is no confirmation from Red Hat that this is a bug > > and not user error or something else. > > > Just because it's been reported by users as a bug doesn't make it one > > (so says a guy who spent part of his career in tech support). > > Whereas I DO agree with what you said, Ed, you must admit that these user > reported errors, from a variety of installs and installation methods (clean > install, dirty upgrade, etc) would clearly indicate that there is SOMETHING > going on with the glibc-2.3.2-27 rpm. I normally don't report bugs quite > like this, I would work through them and correct my issues, however, this > one bit me hard in the behind and I was looking for someone else that had > SEEN the same issue. Turns out that there was actually quite a number of > users out there in the community of varying degrees of expertise, that were > experiencing similar issues. I'll stand by my original comments, especially now that Matt has confirmed that it really was user error (replacing the i686 glibc with an i386 glibc is not the right thing to do). Had you replaced your i686 glibc with the fixed i686 glibc, you would not have been bitten. Had you used up2date, it would have worked too (and if didn't, that would be a bug in up2date). That said, perhaps you could file an RFE for rpm that reports dependency warnings/errors if you try to go from 686 -> 386 to prevent others from shooting themselves in the feet. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:ewilts@xxxxxxxxxx Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program
