[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Error while installing unstable/binary/base/at_3.0.deb



Hi Andreas - 

This has been reported as a bug (by Dirk Eddelbuettel) and is fixed in
at_3.1.2-1.  But, with the problem in the postrm script, normal
reinstallation of the new version doesn't work.  :-(  If your system gets
stuck in that state, you can edit the buggy postrm script pretty simply
to make it work.

The file is `/var/lib/dpkg/info/at.postrm'.  You have to edit it as
root, or at least be root to put the edited version in place.  The
problems are on lines 5 and 6:

 	update-rc.d atd remove >/dev/null; fi
 	rm -rf /var/spool/at{jobs|spool}

should be changed to:

	update-rc.d atd remove >/dev/null
 	rm -rf /var/spool/at{jobs,spool}

That is, take the premature "; fi" off the end of line five, and change
the pipe ("|") into a comma on line 6.  After this, I could install the
new version cleanly.  Hope this helps,

-- 
Ed Donovan				edonovan@world.std.com


Andreas Tille <e2od5@mlucom.urz.uni-halle.de> writes:

> 
> While doing
> 
>    dpkg -i at_3.0.deb
> 
> I got the following errormessage.
> The at_2.9b??.deb in stable works.
> 
> (Reading database ... 21163 files and directories currently installed.)
> Preparing to replace at 3.0 (using at_3.0.deb) ...
> Unpacking replacement at ...
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/at.postrm: spool}: command not found
> dpkg: warning - old post-removal script returned error exit status 127
> dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...
> /var/lib/dpkg/tmp.ci/postrm: spool}: command not found
> dpkg: error processing at_3.0.deb (--install):
>  subprocess new post-removal script returned error exit status 127
> /var/lib/dpkg/tmp.ci/postrm: spool}: command not found
> dpkg: error while cleaning up:
>  subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127
> Errors were encountered while processing:
>  at_3.0.deb
> 
> Is there anybody who observed the same or should I send a bug report
> (or are there any developers reading this and take it as a bug report
> and I havn't to send this twice)
> 


Reply to: