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

Bug#54652: marked as done (base-config: non-descript error, refusal to install)

Your message dated Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:44:22 -0800
with message-id <20000111134422.H30381@kitenet.net>
and subject line Bug#54648: base-config: breaks syslogging?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Jan 2000 19:58:05 +0000
Received: (qmail 28351 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2000 19:53:15 -0000
Received: from 209-130-220-203.nas1.roc.gblx.net (HELO phoenix.overdue.net) (@
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 10 Jan 2000 19:53:15 -0000
Received: by phoenix.overdue.net (Postfix, from userid 1002)
	id 8A7E23085C; Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:53:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: Lazarus Long <lazarus@overdue.dhis.net>
Subject: base-config: non-descript error, refusal to install
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.2.7
Message-Id: <[🔎] 20000110195304.8A7E23085C@phoenix.overdue.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:53:04 +0000 (UTC)

Package: base-config
Version: 0.02
Severity: important

This package is RC according to the changelog.

Sheesh, not only does it not tell what's wrong, but it blasts away the
packages files again afterwards.

# apt-get upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages have been kept back
  bash gnu-standards
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 2 not upgraded.
1 packages not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
Setting up base-config (0.02) ...
dpkg: error processing base-config (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
E: Sub-process returned an error code (1)
# apt-get update
Get:68 http://http.us.debian.org potato/contrib Sources [14.2kB]
Ign http://http.us.debian.org potato/contrib Release
Get:69 http://http.us.debian.org potato/non-free Sources [32.0kB]
Ign http://http.us.debian.org potato/non-free Release
Fetched 1444kB in 4m23s (5489B/s)
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done

-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Kernel Version: Linux phoenix 2.2.14 #1 Thu Jan 6 01:44:28 UTC 2000 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages base-config depends on:
ii  apt                         0.3.15                      Advanced front-end for dpkg
ii  debconf                     0.2.69                      Debian configuration management system
Received: (at 54652-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jan 2000 21:44:27 +0000
Received: (qmail 22894 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2000 21:44:26 -0000
Received: from adsl-63-193-116-241.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO kitenet.net) (qmailr@
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 11 Jan 2000 21:44:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 1694 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jan 2000 21:44:22 -0000
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:44:22 -0800
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
To: 54648-done@bugs.debian.org, 54675-done@bugs.debian.org,
  54635-done@bugs.debian.org, 54648-done@bugs.debian.org,
  54652-done@bugs.debian.org, 54708-done@bugs.debian.org,
  54578-done@bugs.debian.org, 54580-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#54648: base-config: breaks syslogging?
Message-ID: <20000111134422.H30381@kitenet.net>
References: <[🔎] 20000110172332.AE2AF3085E@phoenix.overdue.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0i
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20000110172332.AE2AF3085E@phoenix.overdue.net>; from lazarus@overdue.dhis.net on Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 05:23:32PM +0000

Fixed in 0.04.

Many of these bugs were duplicates filed by the same person. "Lazarus",
don't do that. It's bloody annoying and a waste of my time.

see shy jo

Reply to: