Re: dpkg Broken in Debian Buster
Hi Guillem,
Further details - dpkg-reconfigure tzdata - had this problem as mentioned here:
https://medium.com/@ehsan.nazim/bash-dpkg-reconfigure-command-not-found-in-debian-10-buster-b5c89ae84a75
and dpkg -i and Gdebi-gtk - Had this error
dpkg: warning: 'ldconfig' not found in PATH or not executable
dpkg: warning: 'start-stop-daemon' not found in PATH or not executable
dpkg: error: 2 expected programs not found in PATH or not executable
Note: root's PATH should usually contain /usr/local/sbin, /usr/sbin and /sbin
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=143249
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905564
Regards
Darren Hale
On 5/10/20, Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 2020-05-09 at 18:10:48 +1200, Darren Hale wrote:
>> I have recently installed Debian Buster and found when invoking in
>> terminal su and using dpkg-reconfigure tzdata and dpkg -i that there
>> is error messages.
>
> What error message? As is, this report does not really look
> actionable.
>
>> I have read all the notes around Debian Buster and tried su - and
>> other options and nothing works. I request that the dpkg work as it
>> did in Debian Stretch and previous be the default so that these
>> important system functions are restored such as dpkg -i when using su.
>> I have wasted a lot of time trying to fix this issue with no
>> resolution.
>
> My only guess, without more details, is that you might have stumbled
> over behavior change in su after util-linux took it over from the
> login package. See:
>
> $ zless /usr/share/doc/util-linux/NEWS.Debian.gz
>
> If that's the case, then I'd recommend installing apt-listchanges so
> that you can see these NEWS entries on upgrade, and also reading the
> Release Notes before such distribution upgrade:
>
>
> <https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#su-environment-variables>
>
> In any case this does not appear to be a problem with dpkg, as I'd
> assume we'd have heard of such thing way earlier.
>
> Thanks,
> Guillem
>
Reply to: