Well, this is interesting. The last comment on this bug is 2012, and the
bug has been "confirmed" and all, but it's now 2014 and I'm having the
same problem and am getting the exact same errors on 12.04 trying to cat
two pdfs. One was created by USPS, the other was created by Google.
Do we have a
Oh ooops! I see I missed the time date stamps on a couple of comments:
One from this year, and one from 2013. So I'll just politely raise my
arm and say "me too!" :)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpa
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1056363
Title:
package bind9 1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4ubuntu0.2 failed to install/upgrade:
subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 1
Public bug reported:
Even though all updates to bind9 have come direct from canonical, I am
now getting broken dependency errors when it attempts to upgrade. Nor
can Synaptic even uninstall or "completely remove" bind9 -- which I
attempted to do in order to clean up whatever mess apt has created i
Just got this bug for the first time. Here's my pstree:
init,1
└─aptd,9848 /usr/sbin/aptd
└─dpkg,21101 --status-fd 74 --configure -a
└─frontend,21102 -w /usr/share/debconf/frontend
/var/lib/dpkg/info/bind9.postinst configure 1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4
└─(bind9.postinst,2112
Or the lack of having sendmail, perhaps. I run procmail, not sendmail.
So if it's demanding something of sendmail that isn't duplicated in
procmail, that could indeed be the problem.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
http
Public bug reported:
Contrary to Apport's assumptions, I have NOT made any modifications to
any configuration files. Any modifications that might exist would have
come from earlier update scripts in Ubuntu 10 or 11.
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: bind9 1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1010571
Title:
package bind9 1:9.8.1.dfsg.P1-4ubuntu0.1 failed to install/upgrade:
subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit
Sorry. That should have been drag handles DISabled. =sigh=
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/956203
Title:
No scroll "handles" in Gnome for middle columns
To manage notifications about
Okay, I finally got a long enough stretch of time to test out the bug
without the drag handles enabled.
The short answer is: No bug! I let it go for 8 hours and was still able
to scroll all the accounts that I had let sit that long. So the bug
seems to be related to the drag handle feature, though
Okay... Sorry to vanish there. Things got hectic.
I've got the drag handles disabled. I'm running 11.04. I don't have time
to mess with an upgrade to 11.10 right now, but I can check out 11.04
for you. I can also say that, after running 11.04 both in Gnome and
Unity for nearly a year, I've never
Be happy to, but I need to know what "Precise" is. I assume it's a
client, but I don't see it available for install via Synaptic. Got a URL
to the package?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs
Okay... I have new information on this elusive bug...
The scroll handles *sometimes* disappear when a column gets "buried" too
deeply -- like over 8 hours. *If* the scroll handle then disappears on
that column, in my experience it will remain gone until you reach the
top of the stream again. Then
Thank you for getting back to me!
Unfortunately, since filing this bug I suffered a catastrophic system
failure and have had to do a fresh install of Ubuntu, so the term.log on
this no longer exists.
On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 06:47 +, era wrote:
> Quoting the attached VarLogDistupgradeTermlog.t
Bingo!
That did it. As you suggested, I deleted rudel -- manually, since it was
a manual add-on -- and then deleted sepia via Synaptic. Dpkg went into
automatic configuration mode after the delete, of course (since the
install had failed) but this time it completed successfully.
I have reinstalle
I'll give that a try and let you know soonest.
Thanks!
=michael=
-Original Message-
From: era
Reply-to: Bug 581127 <581...@bugs.launchpad.net>
To: mich...@vetl.org
Subject: [Bug 581127] Re: package emacs23 23.1+1-4ubuntu7 failed to
install/upgrade:
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 07:41:34 -
I'll have to do that for you. The logs I sent you were from an update
that had nothing to do with emacs -- though obviously dpkg tried to
correctly install emacs.
-Original Message-
From: era
Reply-to: Bug 581127 <581...@bugs.launchpad.net>
To: mich...@vetl.org
Subject: [Bug 581127] Re:
As I just sent in an email: I initiated this bug report after emacs
failed to install *twice*, and *before* I reinstalled rudel. In fact, in
the second attempt, I wiped the entirety of emacs off my system and did
a fresh install -- just to be sure it was a Canonical problem, and not
related to the
Rudel was installed AFTER I attempted to install emacs twice -- with the
results I have posted here. Since emacs is at least somewhat functional
I reinstalled rudel because I use it. Not having it installed did not
change the install problem.
=michael
-Original Message-
From: era
Reply-t
Fortunately, I just got my first update notice for Lucid, so emacs tried
(and failed) to install correctly again.
There are four such files in the temp directory. I've attached them all.
=michael=
-Original Message-
From: era
Reply-to: Bug 581127 <581...@bugs.launchpad.net>
To: mich...
Sorry for the delay.
The log is attached. The emacs entries are the bottom. Roughly 1/4.
-Original Message-
From: era
Reply-to: Bug 581127 <581...@bugs.launchpad.net>
To: mich...@vetl.org
Subject: [Bug 581127] Re: package emacs23 23.1+1-4ubuntu7 failed to
install/upgrade:
Date: Mon, 17 M
After the upgrade finished (aborting without cleaning up after itself or
rebooting the system) I went in and removed emacs22 and re-installed
emacs23 via synaptic. Dependency errors in the packages seem to be
what's causing the errors. From two different section of the install
log:
dpkg: error pro
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48518978/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48518979/VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeApttermlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibra
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: emacs23
Upgrade from 9.1.10 to 10.04. Failed during "configuration", exiting
with 1. I don't know why. it's apparently a fresh install with the
upgrade.
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: emacs23 23.1+1-4ubuntu7
ProcVersionSignatur
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48518777/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48518778/VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeApttermlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibra
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: postfix-policyd
Questioned on upgrade from 9.1.10 to 10.04 whether or not i wanted to
re-install the policyd database. When i answered yes it queried for the
database password.
What?
I was never asked to create a password when postifix-policyd was
insta
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48518544/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48518545/VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeApttermlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibra
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: emacs22
Installation script exited with an error status of 1 during
configuration in auto-upgrade from 9.1.10 to 10.04.
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: emacs22-gtk 22.2-0ubuntu9
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-21.59-generic
28 matches
Mail list logo
