Bug 109360

Summary:	Misupgrading glibc makes the system useless
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Zenon Panoussis <redhatbugs>
Component:	rpm	Assignee:	Jeff Johnson <jbj>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Mike McLean <mikem>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	1
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2003-11-07 15:02:31 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Zenon Panoussis 2003-11-07 01:02:44 UTC

Description of problem:
Upgrading redhat 10 beta1 to fedora core 1. After rpm -Fhv glibc* ,
mostly everything ends with something like 

rpm: error while loading shared libraries: librpmdb-4.2.so: cannot
enable executable stack as shared object requires: Permission denied

or

lynx: error while loading shared libraries: libncurses.so.5: cannot
enable executable stack as shared object requires: Permission denied

How reproducible:
After this, I can't reproduce anything at all. Probably not even myself. 
  
Actual results:
Everything locked and blocked.

Expected results:
Either continued functionality or a dependency block against upgrading
glibc. 

Additional info:
Upgraded an i686 machine with the i386 glibc (throw things at me; I've
been bitten by this one before). There is a long-standing and recently
fixed rh9 bug on this. The fix should have made its way into fedora
before final release. 

Proposed solution:
Put the rh9 glibc fix in fedora. Quick, before this bug grows like the
previous one. 

Notes to the next victim:
See bug #88771 and bug #88456 for how to get out of this.

Comment 1 Zenon Panoussis 2003-11-07 01:28:48 UTC

Unlike last time, it's only shared libraries that don't work. bash
does work, and so do other things that don't need access to libraries.
Perhaps I'm looking at a different problem than last time, after all.

Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2003-11-07 15:02:31 UTC

This is not an rpm problem.

Comment 3 Zenon Panoussis 2003-11-07 15:08:19 UTC

It might not be an rpm problem, but it certainly is a problem.
Wouldn't re-labelling it and re-assigning it be a better approach than
just closing it?