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

Bug#188159: Acknowledgement (es_EC.ISO-8859-1...LC_MONETARY: Error during postinstall config => corrupt installation of package)

At 09 Apr 2003 11:21:44 +0200,
Andreas Neudecker wrote:
> > Are you es_EC user?  I have never heard there are some es_EC users.
> > BTW, I don't think it's not important.
> I am not a es_EC user myself. I just usually have all locales built on
> the machines I maintain for the university machines I maintain (because
> you never know where your next guest will be coming from, so you can
> easily make everyone happy ;-). Also: If anybody has done something like
> this (even if he/she doesn't need the locale, but simply thought "the
> more the better", the upgrade to the current version fails - and the
> package installation is suddenly corrupt. A downgrade back to 2.3.1-13
> was not possible either for me since this version was not on the Debian
> ftp site (nor on my machine) any more.
> The only fix for a successful installation seemingly is to edit
> /etc/locale.gen (i.e. comment-out the line for the delinquent, es_EC).
> Then the installation will succeed. But this is certainly not obvious
> for the average user, is it? (Also a user of es_EC would be quite
> unhappy, i guess.)

Try to use "dpkg-reconfigure locales", then simply remove the check
es_EC from locales debconf.

> > > > Your message specified a Severity: in the pseudo-header, but
> > > > the severity value important  was not recognised.
> > >                      ^^^^^^^^^
> > > > The default severity normal is being used instead.
> > > > The recognised values are: critical, grave, serious, important, normal, minor, wishlist, fixed.
> > >                                                        ^^^^^^^^^
> But my mail regarding the "important" setting was rather about the
> setting itself than the status of the bug report: As you can see from
> the quote, the system claims "important" is not recognised, though it is
> then listed in the list of recognised values few lines below in the same
> error report. Also: I didn't TYPE the word "important" but selected the
> value during creating the bugreport in "reportbug" - so somewhere there
> seems to be a bug (a minor one, okay ;-). I just thought, I should
> report it so it could be fixed.

Ah, I see...  I misunderstood you set as "important".

-- gotom

Reply to: