Your message dated Sun, 5 Dec 2010 23:12:18 -0500
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#605059: dpkg: segfaults in a fakechroot on i386
has caused the Debian Bug report #605059,
regarding dpkg: segfaults in a fakechroot on i386
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.)
--
605059: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=605059
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
package: dpkg
version: 1.15.8.5
severity: important
Building a fakechroot on i386 fails due to a dpkg segfault. The
following executed on an i386 system should reproduce the issue:
$ export PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin
$ fakeroot fakechroot debootstrap --variant fakechroot --arch=i386
squeeze ./chroot http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian
W: Failure trying to run: chroot /home/zero79/chroot dpkg
--force-depends --install
/var/cache/apt/archives/base-files_5.10_i386.deb
/var/cache/apt/archives/base-passwd_3.5.22_i386.deb
The output of ./chroot/debootstrap/debootstrap.log contains:
/usr/share/debootstrap/functions: line 745: 12387 Segmentation fault
chroot "$TARGET" "$@"
Running the same command on an amd64 results in the same failure with
following in deboostrap.log
ERROR: ld.so: object 'libfakeroot-sysv.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be
preloaded: ignored.
dpkg: requested operation requires superuser privilege
Running the command on amd64 without "--arch=i386" results in a
successful fakechroot bootstrap.
Thanks so much for looking into this issue.
Best wishes,
Mike
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
version: 2.10-1
>> This bug should be fixed in 2.10 version, AFAIR.
>
> I used the version in squeeze, which is 2.9. I'll re-test on unstable
> later this afternoon. Thanks for the quick response.
I've just tested this on an unstable system and didn't run into the
problem, so you are correct. Any chance of getting a newer version with
this fix pushed into squeeze?
Best wishes,
Mike
--- End Message ---
