Is this the line you wanted ? 2007-02-23 08:59:46 upgrade openbsd-inetd 0.20050402-3 0.20050402-4 2007-02-23 08:59:46 status half-configured openbsd-inetd 0.20050402-3 2007-02-23 08:59:47 status unpacked openbsd-inetd 0.20050402-3 2007-02-23 08:59:47 status half-installed openbsd-inetd 0.20050402-3 2007-02-23 08:59:47 status half-installed openbsd-inetd 0.20050402-3 2007-02-23 08:59:47 status unpacked openbsd-inetd 0.20050402-4 2007-02-23 08:59:47 status unpacked openbsd-inetd 0.20050402-4 2007-02-23 08:59:48 upgrade netbase 4.27 4.29 2007-02-23 08:59:48 status half-configured netbase 4.27
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Tomas Pospisek wrote: > What is irritating about all the bug reports after the upload of > 0.20050402-4 is, that none of the screen dumps of the installation > procedure show any trace of the upgrade routines first __stopping__ the > openbsd-inetd. > > At my place upgrading openbsd-inetd from 0.20050402-4 to 0.20050402-5 > looks like this: > > > $ sudo apt-get install openbsd-inetd > [...] > Reading package lists... Done > Building dependency tree... Done > The following packages will be upgraded: > openbsd-inetd > 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded. > [...] > (Reading database ... 285517 files and directories currently installed.) > Preparing to replace openbsd-inetd 0.20050402-4 (using > .../openbsd-inetd_0.20050402-5_i386.deb) ... > Stopping internet superserver: inetd. > Unpacking replacement openbsd-inetd ... > Setting up openbsd-inetd (0.20050402-5) ... > Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/openbsd-inetd ... > Starting internet superserver: inetd. > > > Note the line "Stopping internet superserver: inetd.". This line is not > present in either Kent West's bug report [1], Ben Low's report [2] (maybe > just not visible there, since not the whole screen dump is included), > Leonardo's report [3], Norman Messtorff's [4], Mind Booster Noori's [5], > Daniel Blaschke's [6], Uwe Storbeck's [7], Mike Young's [8] or Luke > Reeves' [9]. > > (I'm ignoring Peter Köllner's bug report [x] here for once, since that one > has possibly to do with xinetd and thus should be fixed separately.) > > What whould be illuminating would be thus to be able to reproduce the bug > which could be helped by knowing from which version those gents were > upgrading from. > > So please Kent, Ben, Leonardo, Norman, Mind Booster, Daniel, Uwe, Mike an > Luke - could you tell us from which openbsd-inetd (or xinetd or > netkit-inetd) you were upgrading from? > > With a bit of luck you should be able to find this information in either: > /var/backups/dpkg.status* or in /var/log/aptitude* or in /var/log/dpkg*. > > Thanks, > *t > > > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#50 > [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#55 > [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#60 > [4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#65 > [5] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#70 > [6] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#75 > [7] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#94 > [8] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#101 > [9] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#118 > [x] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=386469#45 > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------- > Tomas Pospisek > http://sourcepole.com - Linux & Open Source Solutions > --------------------------------------------------------
