Bug#154915: marked as done ([MD5SUM] libc6: md5sum gave malformatted output error when upgrading potato->woody)
Your message dated Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:05:33 +0100
with message-id <1079946332.1915.78.camel@localhost>
and subject line Done
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.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 31 Jul 2002 06:20:47 +0000
>From turbo@papadoc.bayour.com Wed Jul 31 01:20:47 2002
Return-path: <turbo@papadoc.bayour.com>
Received: from papadoc.bayour.com [195.163.1.190] (qmailr)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17Zmql-0001jn-00; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 01:20:47 -0500
Received: (qmail-ldap/ctrl 9344 invoked by uid 1000); 31 Jul 2002 06:20:44 -0000
Date: 31 Jul 2002 06:20:43 -0000
Message-ID: <20020731062043.9341.qmail@papadoc.bayour.com>
From: turbo@debian.org
Subject: libc6: md5sum gave malformatted output error when upgrading potato->woody
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.1
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: libc6
Version: 2.2.5-10
Severity: normal
----- s n i p -----
meduza:/tmp# dpkg -i libc6_2.2.5-9.woody.4_i386.deb
(Reading database ... 10089 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace libc6 2.2.5-9.woody.4 (using libc6_2.2.5-9.woody.4_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libc6 ...
Setting up libc6 (2.2.5-9.woody.4) ...
dpkg: error processing libc6 (--install):
md5sum gave malformatted output `fc857c5ac5fb84d80720ed4d1c624f6e'
Errors were encountered while processing:
libc6
meduza:/tmp#
----- s n i p -----
In conversation on debian-devel, the problem is that it's using the md5sum output from
a newer dpkg, which is yet to be unpacked/installed.
Please revert to use old output AND/OR check version of md5sum...
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Kernel Version: Linux meduza 2.4.17-Meduza #8 SMP Sun Mar 3 21:03:44 CET 2002 i486 unknown
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 154915-done) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Mar 2004 09:06:10 +0000
>From jdthood@yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 22 01:06:10 2004
Return-path: <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>
Received: from mars.mj.nl [81.91.1.49]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1B5LNp-0002NF-00; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 01:06:09 -0800
Received: (qmail 16073 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 09:05:38 -0000
Received: from 81-91-5-95-customer.mjdsl.nl (HELO thanatos) (81.91.5.95)
by www.mj.nl with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 09:05:38 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by thanatos (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F0F10D60D
for <154915-done@bugs.debian.org>; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:05:33 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Done
From: Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>
To: 154915-done@bugs.debian.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1079946332.1915.78.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 10:05:33 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Delivered-To: 154915-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_12
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_12
X-Spam-Level:
> It's been a while since I upgraded, but if I'm not missremembering,
> I had this problem on some potato->woody upgrades. The ORIGINAL/FIRST
> woody release that is, not any of the later so it should be resonably
> easy to duplicate the problem..
The problem affects upgrade from potato to the original woody and
it has been fixed in woody. It isn't a problem in sarge and sid.
Presumably there is nothing more that needs to be done.
--
Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply to: