Found not found
-
I'm trying to install a package on an Ubuntu 14.04 system for testing purposes, and got presented with this lovely error message:
checking for linux kernel source... found at /lib/modules/3.13.0-32-generic/build not found configure.wd: error: please install the kernel source or specify alternate location
One line says found, next lines indicate not found, and yes I checked and stuff actually exists in the found location so this is one of those errors that actually means something completely different than what it says.
Hooray for open source quality!
-
Most obvious reason for that error would be that you've done a recent update to the kernel (via apt-get update or whatever), and not rebooted since that error. This means that the running kernel is $oldVersion (which does not match kernel-devel and generates the not found) but the installed kernel is $newVersion (which does match kernel-devel and passes the initial check that was looking for kernel & kernel-devel).
When I'm working on CentOS (RHEL based, not Debian based, so take the rest with a pound of salt), installing kernel-devel will only install the most up to date kernel-devel package, which won't work unless I also update kernel (and reboot the server). There are ways to specify a package version, but I'm not familiar with them on yum or apt-get, because whenever I'm installing kernel-devel, it's on a new build anyway and I'm updating kernel and rebooting.
-
Most obvious reason for that error would be that you've done a recent update to the kernel (via apt-get update or whatever), and not rebooted since that error
Don't you think "version mismatch" would be a better error, in that case?
-
I'm not saying the error message makes sense.
I'm just saying, based on my previous experience in CentOS, that error most likely has said root cause.
As you can find from
stalking blakeyusing most open source software for 5 minutes, a desire to write great documentation is not the underlying motivator foranymost participants in an OSS project.
-
desire to write great documentation
Yeah. Remember I just posted about the right way to do this just yesterday (or Monday?) where a customer asked me what "These are the 2013 reports. You need the 2104 reports" means? (Of course I admit that error could be improved, but I expect some users will still fail to understand it.)
This is where Blakey's absolutely right, though. You're not going to get people to take you seriously with BS like that.
-
2104 reports
Is that sic? Or are they misinterpreting those numbers as reports.count() instead of reports.year()
-
Is that sic? Or are they misinterpreting those numbers as reports.count() instead of reports.year()
Feature request: BAL of poster next to their comment
-
-
Buffalo Action League?
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Action League
-
Don't start with the OSS bullshit. Every software throws stupid error messages. And you're doing it wrong, because the system already told you to reboot, so if you don't, expect to get some undefined behavior.
-
Resolved, something had to be symlinked because something else was trying and failing to guess a path, or something like that.
On to my next WTF: trying to find out why certain libraries can't be found. ldd crashes. This is a fresh install of Ubuntu and ldd crashes. Ugh.
-
Is that sic?
Naw, that was just a typo--when I originally mentioned it in another thread, I typed it right.
-
Every software throws stupid error messages.
Sure, but unlike with OSS, when I see stupid errors in my software, I try to fix 'em.
-
Sure, but unlike with OSS, when I see stupid errors in my software, I try to fix 'em.
True Developers™ just blame stupid errors on the users.
-
True Developers™ just blame stupid errors on the users.
The guy who I replaced was...well, let's say he apparently didn't like the users all that much. His code had a lot of mildy-to-outright sarcastic messages. Certain end-of-year updates would put in code that would detect you were running an old version of the app and exhort you to update with "good luck running version xx" or "you should update the software this year." Those are some of the mildish ones.
-
-
No, think more like not quite coming out and saying "you're an idiot, and you did it wrong." One is almost verbatim "date is not reasonable, try again" if you try to put in a date that's older than a few months.
-
My personal favourite is Password does not meet length and complexity requirements. Try again.
Thanks for not letting me know why the password I just entered didn't meet the requirements. :<qqq>/
-
I see that all the time since switching to KeePass. Normally it's because my password is way too long.
-
Users that say "you should tell me whether it's my username or password that's incorrect!"
-
Well, an error is better than quietly cutting the password to the specified length.
-
I know, right? It means your password is too short, or it's too long, or it contains symbols/numbers/letters, or it doesn't contain symbols/numbers/letters.
-
or it contains symbols/numbers/letters
The other annoying WTF: password schemas that don't allow symbols. My KeePass settings make liberal use of symbols.
-
The other annoying WTF: password schemas that don't allow symbols. My KeePass settings make liberal use of symbols.
Your settings should be changed with each password to reflect the site's requirements.
-
Your settings should be changed with each password to reflect the site's requirements.
And then generate from last for those that
fuck you overmake you change it every so often.
-
The other annoying WTF: password schemas that don't allow symbols. My KeePass settings make liberal use of symbols.
I wonder how badly most systems would be hosed by control characters in passwords...
-
I wonder how badly most systems would be hosed by control characters in passwords...
only the ones that are handling passwords wrong.
-
-
Now start swabbing the deck!
No! you're not my captain! in fact you're not even in my chain of command at all! above or below me! so there!
:-P
-
Pirates being famous for doing everything by the rules, obviously.
-
Pirates being famous for doing everything by the rules, obviously.
-sigh- is this going to end up with another peace treaty worked out in /t/1000 to bulk up its post count?
-
-
And those Catpirates would get away with it too ...
-
Pirates being famous for doing everything by the rules
-
Your settings should be changed with each password to reflect the site's requirements.
Except that sites often don't tell you what the requirements are.
-
Except that sites often don't tell you what the requirements are.
The worst are the silent truncators.
-
-
-
The worst are the silent truncators.
Yes. I've posted before about the site I deal with that has different rules for setting a password and trying to log in with it.
-
Except that sites often don't tell you what the requirements are.
So experiment around with it.
That's beside my point, though. The settings for your password manager's complexity of one site should NOT affect the settings for another site.
-
So experiment around with it.
I do, when I have to. I start with the kitchen sink, and if necessary eliminate special characters and/or reduce length until the site accepts it.
The settings for your password manager's complexity of one site should NOT affect the settings for another site.
They don't. I still use strong passwords for sites that will accept them. The other day I had to do a reset on a site I hadn't logged into in a year. The site told me the maximum length, which is about half-again what I normally use; I happily told KeePass to make a longer password (which more than compensated in entropy for the lack of special characters).