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

debootstrap breaks with libc6.1 2.2.4-2 postinst



This is on ia64, b-f 3.0.14, debootstrap 0.1.15.3, libc6.1 2.2.4-2
All worked fine with libc6.1 2.2.4-1.

debootstrap tries to 

	x_core_install $LIBC6

before sysvinit has been installed (it is unpacked, but dpkg doesn't
know about it).

libc6.1 postinst does


sysvinitver="`dpkg -s sysvinit | grep ^Version: | sed -e 's/^Version: *//'`"
case "`uname -m`" in
        i?86)
                badsysvinitver="2.[0-6]*|2.7[0-3]*"
                ;;
        *)
                badsysvinitver="2.[0-6]*|2.7[0-4]*|2.75-*"
                ;;
esac
# Black magic. If we are in a chroot, then /proc/1/exe will not resolve to
# a file (will return EPERM). This keeps us from breaking things in
# debootstrap, and the like.
case "$sysvinitver" in
        $badsysvinitver)
                ;;
        *)
                if [ -x /sbin/init -a -x /bin/readlink ]; then
                        init_proc=`readlink /proc/1/exe`;
                        if [ "$init_proc" = "/sbin/init" ]; then
                                (init u ; sleep 1)
                        fi
                fi
                ;;
esac
fi


the first line of that fails with

  Package `sysvinit' is not installed and no info is available.

so sysvinitver is null.  It then goes on to try and do the readlink and
that fails, meaning the postinst exits with code 1 and debootstrap gives
up.

Even if the first line above worked, it would set sysvinitver=2.82-1
which wouldn't match badsysvinitver and it would still fail.

In libc6.1 2.2.4-1 that last bit of postinst says


eval "case \"$sysvinitver\" in
        $badsysvinitver)
                ;;
        *)
                [ ! -x "/sbin/init" ] || (init u ; sleep 1)
esac"


The "Black magic" comment is new too.

So, do we blame libc6.1 and get that fixed, or do we work round this in
debootstrap?  chmod -x /target/bin/readlink before the x_core_install and
+x afterwards might do, I guess.

Richard





Reply to: