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

Re: (SOLVED) Unable to properly install 2 packages



Marty has been a good help to help me reinstall the guile-1.6 package,
but I could not remove it either since the postrm script was corrupted,
too. Here's a way I thought of to force apt to reinstall a package you
think might have been corrupted along the install process.

apt-get autoclean ; apt-get -d --reinstal $PACKAGE_NAME ;
cd /var/cache/apt/archives ; dpkg -i --force-all $PACKAGE_FILE.

One caveat : I'm assuming here that the source of your problem was some
kind of corruption and that the package would install properly (no
dependencies problems, etc) in normal times; the --force-all might be a
bit risky otherwise.

-- J.F. (Jeff)


On Tue, 2005-31-05 at 22:13 -0400, J.F.Gratton wrote:
> Marty, thank you !
> 
> I clobbered my clunky version of guile-1.6.postinst with the one you
> supplied, and voila.
> 
> I never took any time to delve into the innards of the install system on
> Debian since I never had any problems. Well, tonite is the nite ! :)
> 
> Thanks for getting me out of this predicament.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 
> On Tue, 2005-31-05 at 22:01 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > J.F.Gratton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-31-05 at 21:24 -0400, Marty wrote:
> > >> J.F.Gratton wrote:
> > >> [snip snip]
> > >> > Setting up guile-1.6 (1.6.7-1) ...
> > >> > dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute post-installation script: Exec
> > >> > format error
> > >> > dpkg: error processing guile-1.6 (--configure):
> > >> >  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 2
> > >> 
> > >> That script would be /var/lib/dpkg/info/guile-1.6.postinst
> > > 
> > > OK, here's a start. 'cept that the file looks some kind of informational
> > > file used by apt/dpkg, *not* a script file or anything
> > 
> > Oh my. That's bad!
> > 
> >   (at the bottom of
> > > this message you'll have the contents of the file.
> > 
> > Well, I don't see it down there, but here ar the contents of my version:
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > #!/bin/sh
> > 
> > set -e
> > 
> > if [ "$1" != "upgrade" ] ; then
> >      update-alternatives \
> >        --install /usr/bin/guile guile /usr/bin/guile-1.6 160 \
> >        --slave /usr/bin/guile-config guile-config /usr/bin/guile-1.6-config \
> >        --slave /usr/bin/guile-snarf guile-snarf /usr/bin/guile-1.6-snarf \
> >        --slave /usr/bin/guile-tools guile-tools /usr/bin/guile-1.6-tools
> > fi
> > 
> > # Automatically added by dh_installmenu
> > if [ "$1" = "configure" ] && [ -x /usr/bin/update-menus ]; then update-menus ; fi
> > # End automatically added section
> > -----------------------
> > 
> > Looks like something got clobbered in your installation attempt.
> > 
> > > 
> > >> If it exists and is uncorrupted, then you can try to debug it manually,
> > >> or else just try purging the package and starting over again.
> > > 
> > > As the file does not contain any commands, I don't see anything to
> > > debug.
> > > 
> > > My question remains, then:
> > > 
> > >> > 
> > >> > How do I get out of the "Exec format error" ?
> > >> > 
> > >> > On a related topic : is there a way to make apt "forget" a package,
> > >> > and/or completely purge it from the disk, its installed packages list,
> > >> > etc ? Just so I'd be able to reinstall it or a newer version sometime
> > >> > later ?
> > >> 
> > >> dpkg -P <pkg-name>
> > > 
> > > OK, OK, my question was poorly phrased :). I've been using Deb for
> > > now... 4-5 years, so hopefully I know about dpkg :) What I meant to ask
> > > is how do I completely dump a package (manually remove all traces of it)
> > > when apt-get remove and dpkg -P fail ? My problem with guile is not only
> > > when I try to install it, but also when I try to remove/purge the
> > > package.
> > 
> > The only thing that comes to mind is dlocate or cruft.  Maybe others have
> > better suggestions.
> > 
> > 
> >   You see, I had a power failure when dist-upgrading my system.
> > 
> > Yep.  That could easily explain it.  :-)
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks again,
> > > 
> > > Jeff
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 



Reply to: