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

Re: Bug#766459: debootstrap: should not try to configure

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Michael Tautschnig wrote:

+ [ ! -f /usr/info/dir ]
+ [ ! -f /usr/share/info/dir ]
+ install_from_default /usr/share/base-files/info.dir /usr/share/info/dir
+ [ ! -f /usr/share/info/dir ]
+ cp -p /usr/share/base-files/info.dir /usr/share/info/dir
+ chmod 644 /usr/share/info/dir
+ chown root:root /usr/share/info/dir
chown: invalid user: 'root:root'

Thanks a lot for this. I was mistaken/confused. The recently added
three lines at the end of base-files postinst may not be the reason
for debootstrap fail. I've moved them anyway to a better place.

Now we have this "chown root:root /usr/share/info/dir" that fails.

If this is the *only* place where it fails, this could be ommited
because postinst is executed by root and the chown is not really

> > Regarding previous point, it should be noted that base-files postinst
> > has a lot of chown calls. I would like to know how it is possible that
> > only the recently added is the one that fails and not the others
> > (if that's really the case).
> I suppose none of the others are being executed as all of them are guarded by
> some combination of checks?

I refer specifically to the big "if" block starting

if [ "$1" = "configure" ] && [ "$2" = "" ]; then

There are a lot of "install_directory" calls there.

If any of them fails because of the root user does not exist yet, all
of them will fail. But those lines have been there since a long time,
so after base-files_7.9 where I moved the lines that create /mnt on
upgrades, I don't really see what recent change in base-files could be
the reason (or better, the trigger) for debootstrap failure.

It must be something else.

> As you please. I was just hoping to find potential options other
> than "revert the change in base-files."

I'm still open for options for the benefit of wheezy users not using

But I need to have a better view of why it's failing when it was not
failing before, if that's really the case.


Reply to: