Ubuntu
skype package

  1. Bug #647717
  2. Comment #0

Comment 0 for bug 647717

Revision history for this message
Kevin Jadin (marcspitz) wrote :

Binary package hint: skype

Hi,
I have upgraded from Lucid to Maverick some days ago and I have just tried to log back on Skype.
Skype does not start and gives me these warnings/errors:

Maverick x64 :

user@computer:~$ skype

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libequinox.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libequinox.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libaurora.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libequinox.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libaurora.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libaurora.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libaurora.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libequinox.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/immodules/im-cedilla.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: Loading IM context type 'cedilla' failed

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/immodules/im-cedilla.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: Loading IM context type 'cedilla' failed

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: /usr/lib/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/immodules/im-cedilla.so: mauvaise classe ELF: ELFCLASS64

(<unknown>:9975): Gtk-WARNING **: Loading IM context type 'cedilla' failed
Inconsistency detected by ld.so: dl-open.c: 612: _dl_open: Assertion `_dl_debug_initialize (0, args.nsid)->r_state == RT_CONSISTENT' failed!

I reported a new bug because the warning are not the same as the ones from the other bug reports. Otherwise, it seems like the final error remains the same as in bug report #647581.