Segfault after dist-upgrade
Hi all,
I have tried to update squeeze to the next 'unstable' dist and thereby turned it into a non-functioning state:
[...]
Reading changelogs... Done
Extracting templates from packages: 100%
Preconfiguring packages ...
Setting up libc6 (2.17-7) ...
Configuration file `/etc/ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf'
==> File on system created by you or by a script.
==> File also in package provided by package maintainer.
What would you like to do about it ? Your options are:
Y or I : install the package maintainer's version
N or O : keep your currently-installed version
D : show the differences between the versions
Z : start a shell to examine the situation
The default action is to keep your current version.
*** i486-linux-gnu.conf (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? y
Installing new version of config file /etc/ld.so.conf.d/i486-linux-gnu.conf ...
Checking for services that may need to be restarted...
Checking init scripts...
WARNING: init script for openbsd-inetd not found.
Restarting services possibly affected by the upgrade:
exim4: restarting...done.
cups: restarting...done.
cron: restarting...done.
atd: restarting...done.
Services restarted successfully.
E: Problem executing scripts DPkg::Post-Invoke 'test -f /var/run/science-config.usermenu && if [ -x /usr/sbin/blend-update-usermenus ] ; then /usr/sbin/blend-update-usermenus science ; fi ; rm -f /var/run/science-config.usermenu'
E: Sub-process returned an error code
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg received a segmentation fault.
root@hrefna:~# apt-get -f dist-upgrade
Segmentation fault
root@hrefna:~# ls
Segmentation fault
root@hrefna:~#
I have had this post-invoke test error before when I executed apt-get -f dist-upgrade with some libs preloaded (I moved the libc6.so following http://blog.i-al.net/2013/03/a-copy-of-the-c-library-was-found-in-an-unexpected-directory/). However I hoped to get around it.
I'd like to know whether this error appeared on my behalf ...
Suppose, I won't be able to restart the computer when it's shut down ...
Best regards
Anne
Reply to: