hello rolf, I do not understand why I got this mail as the reported bug dates back to 2009, or was there a recent report? kind regards and thanks for your time, giorgio fiasko
> Am 03.12.2014 um 09:23 schrieb Rolf Leggewie <[email protected]>: > > maverick has seen the end of its life and is no longer receiving any > updates. Marking the maverick task for this ticket as "Won't Fix". > > ** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu Maverick) > Status: Fix Committed => Won't Fix > > -- > You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to a > duplicate bug report (822570). > https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/442941 > > Title: > debconf failed to upgrade from 1.5.27ubuntu1 to 1.5.27ubuntu2: exit > status 128 - Use of uninitialized value $reply in scalar chomp at > /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/FrontEnd/Passthrough.pm line 66 > > Status in debconf package in Ubuntu: > Invalid > Status in tzdata package in Ubuntu: > Invalid > Status in ubiquity package in Ubuntu: > Fix Released > Status in debconf source package in Lucid: > Invalid > Status in tzdata source package in Lucid: > Invalid > Status in ubiquity source package in Lucid: > Fix Released > Status in debconf source package in Maverick: > Invalid > Status in tzdata source package in Maverick: > Invalid > Status in ubiquity source package in Maverick: > Won't Fix > Status in debconf source package in Natty: > Invalid > Status in tzdata source package in Natty: > Invalid > Status in ubiquity source package in Natty: > Fix Committed > Status in debconf source package in Oneiric: > Invalid > Status in tzdata source package in Oneiric: > Invalid > Status in ubiquity source package in Oneiric: > Fix Released > > Bug description: > Stable update justification: > > Impact: Due to incorrect permissions on /var/cache/debconf/config.dat, the > first upgrade using update-manager may fail. Other package management > frontends that use aptdaemon may also fail on the first attempt. > Development branch: I've fixed this in ubiquity 2.7.11 in oneiric by adding > the --config=Mode:0644 option to its debconf-copydb invocation. > Patch: https://bazaar.launchpad.net/+branch/ubiquity/revision/4769 > TEST CASE: See comment 17. Also check the permissions on > /var/cache/debconf/config.dat; they should be 0644 (-rw-r--r--), but this bug > caused them to be 0600 (-rw-------). > Regression potential: This change only affects new installations, not > upgrades. Any problems should be exposed quickly as part of milestone > release / point release testing. Although no point releases of 10.10 or > 11.04 are planned, I'd like to upload this change there anyway to help out > people building customised images. > > Original report follows: > > Binary package hint: debconf > > Failed to report to debconf during first upgrade after installation of > 9.10 beta. Upgrade failed. > > ProblemType: Package > Architecture: amd64 > Date: Mon Oct 5 09:54:06 2009 > DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10 > ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error > exit status 128 > NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia > Package: debconf 1.5.27ubuntu2 > PackageArchitecture: all > ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-11.36-generic > SourcePackage: debconf > Title: package debconf 1.5.27ubuntu2 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess > installed post-installation script returned error exit status 128 > Uname: Linux 2.6.31-11-generic x86_64 > > To manage notifications about this bug go to: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debconf/+bug/442941/+subscriptions -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/442941 Title: debconf failed to upgrade from 1.5.27ubuntu1 to 1.5.27ubuntu2: exit status 128 - Use of uninitialized value $reply in scalar chomp at /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/FrontEnd/Passthrough.pm line 66 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debconf/+bug/442941/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
