>From: Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no
>
>Jonathan's comments elided, <entropy@zippy.bernstein.com> said:
>
>> This isn't a matter of "semantics".  This specific problem is with
>> ld.so and *not* the kernel.  It seems to be more or less the same as
>> the problem that forced the decision to back out libc.13, reduced to
>> the window of time while libc and userland are out of synch.
>
>I don't think so.  The error message may come from ld.so, but
>I'll claim that it's not really ld.so's fault that this happens,
>it's most likely working "as advertised".

Agreed, my statement is poorly worded.  It sounds like I'm saying
ld.so is broken, which isn't what I meant.  What I did mean is that the
particular problem reported by Simon is happening at the level of
dynamic linking, not at the kernel level.

>I beleive this is yet another instance of breaking the rule that
>you should always update (all) your kernels before installing a
>new user-land.

Of course he *would* encounter problems with running an old kernel
with new binaries, if he could get that far.  That's precisely why I
said this in my original reply:

>>Make sure the kernel and *all* of userland on mona (especially /bin
                ^^^^^^
>>and /sbin which are not on the shared /usr filesystem) are up to date.
>>Reboot mona and all should be well.

Now that we're all in agreement that this is what Simon should do, can
we get on with life? :-)

--
entropy -- it's not just a good idea, it's the second law.