From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#24138: SIGSEGV of useradd (from shadow package) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:25:32 +0100 Message-ID: <87d1f2eujn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160803065906.tgckq77l7k6gqa4w@crashnator.suse.cz> <87h9b123m4.fsf@gnu.org> <20160803233130.keci3q5l4llnfxta@crashnator.suse.cz> <87oa3x5epl.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50843) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cYgsH-0004am-HM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:26:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cYgsE-0003ua-ES for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:26:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:54435) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cYgsE-0003uW-Ar for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:26:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cYgsE-0007Wn-2n for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:26:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87oa3x5epl.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2016 16:29:26 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C4=8Cech?= Cc: 24138@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1, Any updates on this bug, or should we close it? https://bugs.gnu.org/24138 Thanks in advance! :-) Ludo=E2=80=99. ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis: > Hi, > > Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech skribis: > >> On the other hand it seems to load part of the libraries from 2.22, >> part from 2.23 and that is not healthy. > > Indeed, this cannot work. Do you still have this problem? Do you know > why both libc versions were being used (LD_LIBRARY_PATH or some such?)? > > TIA, > Ludo=E2=80=99.