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

Re: Upgrades blocked by half-installed package, libpam0g



Florian Kulzer wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:35:39 +0000, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 03:54:23AM +0000, John O'Hagan wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
>> > I'm running lenny.
>> >
>> > The power failed on my laptop during a recent upgrade about a week
>> > ago. Don't know if this is why, but attempts to upgrade or install any
>> > new packages since then fail because aptitude (or rather dpkg) chokes
>> > on repeated attempts to configure libpam0g:
>> >
>> > dpkg: error processing libpam0g (--configure):
>> >  subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 9
>> > Errors were encountered while processing:
>> >  libpam0g
>> > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

[...]

>> > # dpkg --configure libpam0g
>> > Setting up libpam0g (1.0.1-3) ...
>> > debconf: unable to initialize frontend: Kde
>> > debconf: (--- No method to call for :)
>> > debconf: falling back to frontend: Dialog
>>
>> Can you try using a different debconf frontend?
>>
>> DEBIAN_FRONTEND=readline apt-get install -f

>or try
>
>DEBCONF_FORCE_DIALOG=1 apt-get install -f

[...]

>> > --- No method to call for :
> >>         QApplication::new('Qt::Applic...', ARRAY(0x993c1c8))
> > >at /usr/lib/perl5/Qt.pm line 464.
> >
> >This is debconf?

>I think so; it looks like this bug:
>
>http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=481642
>
>I would run
>
>dpkg-reconfigure --frontend=dialog debconf
>
>and set the default user interface to "Dialog", at least until this bug
>is fixed.
>

Thanks for the assistance.

As usual, Florian is correct: it was not enough to merely force a different
debconf frontend, but setting the default to dialog did the trick.

I'm still a little mystified as I have been getting those two error messages
for some time without consequence; is it something about libpam0g, or the
interruption to the original upgrade that precipitated the issue?

Thanks,

John


Reply to: