Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 107819

Summary: upgrading glibc wirh rpm -Fvh glibc* destroyed my station
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Sergej Srepfler <sergej>
Component: glibcAssignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Brian Brock <bbrock>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 9CC: fweimer
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-02-21 18:59:21 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Sergej Srepfler 2003-10-23 12:48:52 UTC
Description of problem:

After manually upgrading a freshly installed RedHatLinux 9.0
system locks down and any further command returns Segmentation fault
System won't boot either.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
  glibc-2.3.2-27.9.i386.rpm
  glibc-common-2.3.2*
  glibc-debug-2.3.2*
  glibc-devel-2.3.2*
  glibc-profile-2.3.2*
  glibc-utils-2.3.2*

How reproducible:

After issuing a rpm -Fvh glibc*, an error occured and system becomes unstable.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Freshly installed 9.0
2. Download glibc* from updates.redhat.com
3. rpm -Fvh glibc*
    
Actual results:

Segmentation fault for any command. System won't boot.

Expected results:


Additional info:
Manually upgrading by selecting each rpm and using --nodeps switch work OK.

Comment 1 Brian Zammit 2003-10-27 00:01:21 UTC
I am experiencing the exact same problem. I have repeated this over 10 times on
two different machines with various hardware configurations in each.

Comment 2 Ulrich Drepper 2003-10-27 08:48:13 UTC
You are most definitely replacing a i686 installation with i386 binaries.  Don't
do that.  If you'd have up2date update your machine this wouldn't happen.  If
you do it yourself you better know what you do.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 88456 ***

Comment 3 Red Hat Bugzilla 2006-02-21 18:59:21 UTC
Changed to 'CLOSED' state since 'RESOLVED' has been deprecated.