[Bug 1425531] Re: package linux-image-extra-3.16.0-31-generic 3.16.0-31.41 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
I checked my /boot partition and found that it only had 15MB left. Cleaning out some old images also fixed the problem for me. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1425531 Title: package linux-image-extra-3.16.0-31-generic 3.16.0-31.41 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1425531/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1425531] [NEW] package linux-image-extra-3.16.0-31-generic 3.16.0-31.41 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Public bug reported: I got an automatic pop-up that an error had occurred, which asked to be report the problem. Apparently it was due to a failure in an automatic update to my system. ProblemType: Package DistroRelease: Ubuntu 14.10 Package: linux-image-extra-3.16.0-31-generic 3.16.0-31.41 ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.16.0-30.40-generic 3.16.7-ckt3 Uname: Linux 3.16.0-30-generic x86_64 ApportVersion: 2.14.7-0ubuntu8.2 Architecture: amd64 AudioDevicesInUse: USERPID ACCESS COMMAND /dev/snd/controlC1: shsentoff 2923 F pulseaudio /dev/snd/controlC0: shsentoff 2923 F pulseaudio Date: Wed Feb 25 07:47:07 2015 ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 HibernationDevice: RESUME=UUID=6c868fdc-d446-41fd-a6e8-62beda07cbd4 InstallationDate: Installed on 2014-12-20 (66 days ago) InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 14.10 Utopic Unicorn - Release amd64 (20141022.1) IwConfig: eth0 no wireless extensions. lono wireless extensions. MachineType: LENOVO 222 ProcFB: 0 inteldrmfb ProcKernelCmdLine: BOOT_IMAGE=/vmlinuz-3.16.0-30-generic root=/dev/mapper/ubuntu--vg-root ro quiet splash vt.handoff=7 PulseList: Error: command ['pacmd', 'list'] failed with exit code 1: No PulseAudio daemon running, or not running as session daemon. RelatedPackageVersions: grub-pc 2.02~beta2-15 RfKill: SourcePackage: linux Title: package linux-image-extra-3.16.0-31-generic 3.16.0-31.41 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install) WifiSyslog: dmi.bios.date: 07/04/2008 dmi.bios.vendor: LENOVO dmi.bios.version: 52KT43AUS dmi.board.asset.tag: To Be Filled By O.E.M. dmi.board.name: LENOVO dmi.board.vendor: LENOVO dmi.board.version: To be filled by O.E.M. dmi.chassis.type: 3 dmi.chassis.vendor: To Be Filled By O.E.M. dmi.chassis.version: To Be Filled By O.E.M. dmi.modalias: dmi:bvnLENOVO:bvr52KT43AUS:bd07/04/2008:svnLENOVO:pn222:pvrLENOVO:rvnLENOVO:rnLENOVO:rvrTobefilledbyO.E.M.:cvnToBeFilledByO.E.M.:ct3:cvrToBeFilledByO.E.M.: dmi.product.name: 222 dmi.product.version: LENOVO dmi.sys.vendor: LENOVO ** Affects: linux (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: Confirmed ** Tags: amd64 apport-package utopic -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1425531 Title: package linux-image-extra-3.16.0-31-generic 3.16.0-31.41 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1425531/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 659732] Re: [EMU10K1X - Dell Sound Blaster Live!] ALSA test tone not correctly played back
I also installed this driver module for kernel 2.6.35-24 and the problem was fixed for me. Thanks. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/659732 Title: [EMU10K1X - Dell Sound Blaster Live!] ALSA test tone not correctly played back -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
RE: [Bug 391886] Re: cups-pdf fails from remote machine, apparmor complains
I haven't loaded 9.10 yet, so I can't say. Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:21:08 + From: ja...@ubuntu.com To: steve30...@hotmail.com Subject: [Bug 391886] Re: cups-pdf fails from remote machine, apparmor complains Thank you for using Ubuntu and taking the time to report a bug. Is this still an issue in Ubuntu 9.10? ** Tags added: apparmor ** Changed in: cups (Ubuntu) Status: New = Incomplete -- cups-pdf fails from remote machine, apparmor complains https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/391886 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. Status in “cups” package in Ubuntu: Incomplete Bug description: Binary package hint: cups Description: Ubuntu 9.04 Release: 9.04 cups version: 1.3.9-17ubuntu3.1 If I try to print a PDF file from a remote machine (over Samba) to the shared cups-pdf printer on my Ubuntu machine, the PDF file is not created and apparmor complains with this message: Jun 24 15:34:05 carex kernel: [427008.935872] type=1503 audit(1245875645.523:73): operation=inode_permission requested_mask=r:: denied_mask=r:: fsuid=0 name=/var/spool/cups/d00022-001 pid=9732 profile=/usr/lib/cups/backend/cups-pdf Apparently cups puts the file in /var/spool/cups and then cups-pdf tries to move it to its final destination. Adding the following line to the /usr/lib/cups/backend/cups-pdf profile in /etc/apparmor.d/usr.sbin.cupsd fixed the problem for me: /var/spool/cups/* rw, _ Windows 7: Simplify your PC. Learn more. http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen1:102009 -- cups-pdf fails from remote machine, apparmor complains https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/391886 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
RE: [Bug 394556] Re: multiple running instances of update-motd cause errors
Yes, I was using the lockfile from the procmail package. But I agree flock should work just as well. I saw both were available and arbitrarily picked lockfile for my testing. Thanks for your work. -- Steve Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:14:13 + From: dustin.kirkl...@gmail.com To: steve30...@hotmail.com Subject: [Bug 394556] Re: multiple running instances of update-motd cause errors Nevermind, I found flock(1). It's working like a champ ;-) :-Dustin ** Changed in: update-motd (Ubuntu) Status: Triaged = In Progress -- multiple running instances of update-motd cause errors https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/394556 You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber of the bug. Status in “update-motd” package in Ubuntu: In Progress Bug description: Binary package hint: update-motd Description: Ubuntu 9.04 Release: 9.04 update-motd: Installed: 1.11.1 When update-motd is executed out of /etc/cron.d, the instances are all set to run at the same minute (if they run at all). This means that up to five instances of update-motd can be started simultaneously. This causes two problems-- 1. The method used to lock out simultaneous executions is not very robust. The $NEW file, which is used as a synchronization lock, is tested early in the script, but not created until later. This leaves a window open for multiple scripts to get started, and then collide with each other, ultimately messing up the resulting message of the day. At least on my machine, this error happens about half the time on each hour. The code to nice the process seems to be the part that opens the window the widest. Using lockfile to create a semaphore for synchronization corrects this flaw. I've created a modified version of update-motd and included it as an attachment. 2. By design, only one instance of update-motd can run at a time, and others just exit. However, this means that some of the work scheduled for the same minute doesn't get done (assuming the synchronization works correctly). But this isn't really what you want--if both the 10-minute and the hourly script are scheduled on the hour, you want both to execute serially. I can see two possible solutions to this: a) Alter the lockfile code in the attachment to allow retries. Changing -r0 to -r5 in the attached code would allow all the instances that could possibly be scheduled to take their turns to run. The downside of this solution is that if update-motd is run manually, it could take up to 40 seconds to fail, when the lock is in place. Even the 8 second delay for a single retry is likely to be confusing to the user. b) Alter the update-motd crontab entry in /etc/cron.d so that the instances of update-motd don't coincide. For example, one job on the 10-minute boundaries, one 1 minute after the hour, one 2 minutes after midnight each day, one 3 minutes after midnight each week, one 4 minutes after midnight each month. This change would also reduce the likelihood of multiple running instances to the point that the current method of synchronization with the $NEW file would rarely cause a problem. _ Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 -- multiple running instances of update-motd cause errors https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/394556 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 394556] [NEW] multiple running instances of update-motd cause errors
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: update-motd Description:Ubuntu 9.04 Release:9.04 update-motd: Installed: 1.11.1 When update-motd is executed out of /etc/cron.d, the instances are all set to run at the same minute (if they run at all). This means that up to five instances of update-motd can be started simultaneously. This causes two problems-- 1. The method used to lock out simultaneous executions is not very robust. The $NEW file, which is used as a synchronization lock, is tested early in the script, but not created until later. This leaves a window open for multiple scripts to get started, and then collide with each other, ultimately messing up the resulting message of the day. At least on my machine, this error happens about half the time on each hour. The code to nice the process seems to be the part that opens the window the widest. Using lockfile to create a semaphore for synchronization corrects this flaw. I've created a modified version of update-motd and included it as an attachment. 2. By design, only one instance of update-motd can run at a time, and others just exit. However, this means that some of the work scheduled for the same minute doesn't get done (assuming the synchronization works correctly). But this isn't really what you want--if both the 10-minute and the hourly script are scheduled on the hour, you want both to execute serially. I can see two possible solutions to this: a) Alter the lockfile code in the attachment to allow retries. Changing -r0 to -r5 in the attached code would allow all the instances that could possibly be scheduled to take their turns to run. The downside of this solution is that if update-motd is run manually, it could take up to 40 seconds to fail, when the lock is in place. Even the 8 second delay for a single retry is likely to be confusing to the user. b) Alter the update-motd crontab entry in /etc/cron.d so that the instances of update-motd don't coincide. For example, one job on the 10-minute boundaries, one 1 minute after the hour, one 2 minutes after midnight each day, one 3 minutes after midnight each week, one 4 minutes after midnight each month. This change would also reduce the likelihood of multiple running instances to the point that the current method of synchronization with the $NEW file would rarely cause a problem. ** Affects: update-motd (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- multiple running instances of update-motd cause errors https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/394556 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 394556] Re: multiple running instances of update-motd cause errors
** Attachment added: Version of update-motd using lockfile for synchronization http://launchpadlibrarian.net/28615240/update-motd -- multiple running instances of update-motd cause errors https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/394556 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 391886] [NEW] cups-pdf fails from remote machine, apparmor complains
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: cups Description:Ubuntu 9.04 Release:9.04 cups version: 1.3.9-17ubuntu3.1 If I try to print a PDF file from a remote machine (over Samba) to the shared cups-pdf printer on my Ubuntu machine, the PDF file is not created and apparmor complains with this message: Jun 24 15:34:05 carex kernel: [427008.935872] type=1503 audit(1245875645.523:73): operation=inode_permission requested_mask=r:: denied_mask=r:: fsuid=0 name=/var/spool/cups/d00022-001 pid=9732 profile=/usr/lib/cups/backend/cups-pdf Apparently cups puts the file in /var/spool/cups and then cups-pdf tries to move it to its final destination. Adding the following line to the /usr/lib/cups/backend/cups-pdf profile in /etc/apparmor.d/usr.sbin.cupsd fixed the problem for me: /var/spool/cups/* rw, ** Affects: cups (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- cups-pdf fails from remote machine, apparmor complains https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/391886 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
