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

Re: removal of Gnome2 not working



On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 08:17:10PM -0500, Nicolaus Kedegren <kedegrennicolaus@attbi.com> wrote:
> In short:
> Removing file-roller2 ...
> /var/lib/dpkg/info/file-roller2.postrm: scrollkeeper-update: command not found
> dpkg: error processing file-roller2 (--remove):
>  subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127
> is repeated for a few packages.
> 
> the final mesage  get is:
> E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
> and in all honesty, I have never seen this before, and my question would be 
> the following:
> Why does this happen, and what can I do to take care of this issue?

This is happening for the exact reason it claims:
scrollkeeper-update: command not found :)
There are four scripts associated with each Debian package:
preinst,postinst,prerm and postrm.  The preinst script is executed
before the package is unpacked, the postinst, after it's unpacked; the
prerm before the files are deleted and postrm after the files are
deleted.  They're simple shell scripts (well, mostly), and you can read
them in /var/lib/dpkg/info/packagename.{preinst,postint,prerm,postrm}.
They handle things like updating config files, starting daemons and all
sorts of other things.

What's happening here is that the `file-roller2' package is trying to
run `scrollkeeper-update', which isn't installed any more, presumably to
tell scrollkeeper that it's removed the file-roller2 documentation.  I'm
not sure where the bug is here, but you'll need to re-install
scrollkeeper (or whichever package provides the scrollkeeper-update
binary) before dpkg will be able to finish up.

> Oh, and one last thing, this problem also prevents me from installing ANY new 
> packages on my system.
[serious snippage]

Ah, yes.  apt doesn't want to install any new packages while your
current ones are broken.  Once these packages are removed, it should
work fine.

-rob

Attachment: pgpyPnweBrQSX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: