Your message dated Sat, 12 Sep 2015 23:03:01 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: aptitude: crash with basic_string::_S_construct NULL not
valid
has caused the Debian Bug report #385784,
regarding aptitude: crash with basic_string::_S_construct NULL not valid
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
385784: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=385784
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: aptitude
Version: 0.4.2-1
Severity: normal
Severity note: the system experiencing this problem is currently
unable to install or upgrade any packages (at least with aptitude).
This error arose in connection with that problem, and this error may
have contributed to the problem. So the bug might warrant higher severity.
On the other hand, the crash may be a side effect of a packaging
problem with texlive.
When I try to remove texlive with aptitude I get
dpkg: error processing preview-latex-style (--remove):
Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should
reinstall it before attempting a removal.
(Reading database ... terminate called after throwing an instance of
'std::logic_error'
what(): basic_string::_S_construct NULL not valid
Aborted
(It is possible things got in such a bad state partly because aptitude
crashed earlier and didn't have a chance to clean up).
For more context, see my bug 384945 against texlive and the thread
around http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2006/08/msg02805.html
(others with same problem). The author the message that last link
refers to said he's discussed the problem on #debian-devel and filed a
bug, but that bug seems to be against dvipdfm (which certainly does
need fixing).
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (990, 'stable'), (50, 'unstable'), (1,
'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-2-686-smp
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages aptitude depends on:
ii apt [libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6-3.1 0.6.45 Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii libc6 2.3.6-15 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii libgcc1 1:4.1.1-5 GCC support library
ii libncursesw5 5.5-2 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii libsigc++-2.0-0c2a 2.0.16-3 type-safe Signal Framework for C++
ii libstdc++6 4.1.1-5 The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
Versions of packages aptitude recommends:
ii aptitude-doc-en [aptitude-doc 0.4.2-1 English manual for aptitude, a ter
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2014-02-05 22:14 To [email protected]:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
This bug needs to be reevaluated since it's quite old and the other
parts involved (including dpkg and apt) must have changed
significantly in these 7 years.
I am going to close this bug report, since it happened in a very
specific point in time, all the messages are from within the same week
in 2006, and 9 years passed since then without apparently more
duplicates in our long list of bugs open. Having been open for 9 years
didn't result in anybody paying attention to it.
It was probably a temporary problem in the interface between apt and
dpkg and was probably fixed long ago.
I don't think that keeping this open will lead to anybody to investigate
it at this point, so it's not very useful to keep it around.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Aptitude-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel
