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

Re: can't install x11-common




Hi ilya,

I'm trying to install x11-common package.
$ apt-get install x11-common
[...]
Setting up x11-common (1:7.5+8) ...
[...]
Setting up X server socket directory /tmp/.X11-unix...chown:
`root:root': invalid user
dpkg: error processing x11-common (--configure):
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1

How that (chown error) can be fixed ?

you are using x11-common from the official debian archive.
x11-common is arch:all, so basically this works, but sometimes arch:all packages need to be modified for debian-interix. In the package installation script, the user "root" is named explicitely, but of course it is not available on debian-interix. So this is not a chmod problem.

I have built a patched x11-common package which is available in the debian-interix archives. To use that version, you need to change the apt-get config (from http://debian-interix.net):

  You should create the file /etc/apt/preferences with the following
  content to avoid updating arch-all packages to the standard Debian
  version when a change for Interix has been made. See
  apt_preferences(5) for details.

  Package: *
  Pin: release a=unreleased35
  Pin-Priority: 800


PS. chown is from
http://debian-interix.net/debian-interix/bootstrap-tools/coreutils/bin.tgz
PPS. Can you move bullet about replacing default coreutils by
http://debian-interix.net/debian-interix/bootstrap-tools/coreutils/bin.tgz
to the start of INSTALL ? Since default coreutils are often not fully
compatible. For example, mkdir(1) accept only -m, but not --mode.
Default date(1) and chown(1) are also bugged.

When did you see these incompatibilities? Already when bootstapping debian-interix, or later when installing packages of your choice? I thought the bootstrap would go through with the default coreutils, so I placed this bullet after the bootstrapping instructions. But I'll change the order if you saw errors already when bootstrapping.

Martin


Reply to: