Your message dated Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:00:17 +0530
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#305179: preinst returned error exit status 1 (sed: -e
expression #1, char 48: Extra characters after command)
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Apr 2005 13:22:44 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 18 06:22:44 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mx1.netapp.com [216.240.18.38]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DNWD6-0003MM-00; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:22:44 -0700
Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com (10.57.159.114)
by mx1.netapp.com with ESMTP; 18 Apr 2005 06:22:14 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.92,109,1112598000";
d="scan'208"; a="145424878:sNHT15759148"
Received: from appaji.hq.netapp.com ([10.72.11.45])
by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id
j3IDMCb3024853
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from giridhar by appaji.hq.netapp.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1
(Debian))
id 1DNWCY-0003G5-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:52:10 +0530
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:52:10 +0530
From: Y Giridhar Appaji Nag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: preinst returned error exit status 1 (sed: -e expression #1, char 48:
Extra characters after command)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Website: http://www.appaji.net/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: zsh
Version: 4.2.5-3
Severity: grave
When I try to install zsh version 4.2.5-3 (latest in unstable), the
installation fails in the pre-installation script with the following
error.
# sudo apt-get install zsh
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Suggested packages:
zsh-doc
The following packages will be upgraded:
zsh
1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B/2035kB of archives.
After unpacking 1696kB of additional disk space will be used.
(Reading database ... 89512 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace zsh 4.0.4-33 (using .../archives/zsh_4.2.5-3_i386.deb) ...
sed: -e expression #1, char 48: Extra characters after command
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/zsh_4.2.5-3_i386.deb (--unpack):
subprocess pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/zsh_4.2.5-3_i386.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
This happened originally when I was trying to do a dist-upgrade when the
version of zsh was 4.2.4-7. I 'apt-get remove --purge'd that version of
zsh and tried to install the versions 4.2.5-3 and 4.2.5-1 of the package
and failed with the same error. 4.0.4-33 installation succeeded and then
an upgrade to either 4.2.5-1 or 4.2.5-3 fails.
Giridhar
PS: The above install log shows an upgrade from 4.0.4-33 because I did
not find 4.2.4-7 at http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/z/zsh/ so
I downloaded 4.2.5-1 (which failed) and then 4.0.4-33 (which succeeded)
and tried to install 4.2.5-3, which failed.
--
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 305179-done) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Apr 2005 16:11:56 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 18 09:11:56 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from shire.symonds.net [69.93.152.234]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DNYqq-0001Qt-00; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:11:56 -0700
Received: from [59.92.140.175] (helo=majuli.appaji.net)
by shire.symonds.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.44)
id 1DNYqp-0004ln-Kl; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:11:56 -0500
Received: from appaji by majuli.appaji.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1DNZ8b-00011l-00; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:00:17 +0530
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:00:17 +0530
From: Y Giridhar Appaji Nag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#305179: preinst returned error exit status 1 (sed: -e
expression #1, char 48: Extra characters after command)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Website: http://www.appaji.net/
X-Debbugs-No-Ack: true
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-9.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
X_DEBBUGS_NO_ACK autolearn=ham version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
On 05/04/18 11:20 -0400, Clint Adams said ...
> > sed: -e expression #1, char 48: Extra characters after command
>
> What version of sed is this?
OK. I tried this on my home machine, and both upgrade and installation
work fine. Based on your hint, I poked around and bit, and I found that
the other machine that I was trying to upgrade had an old version of sed
in an nfs mounted /usr/local being picked up from /usr/local/bin which
was why this was failing.
I am closing this bug. I don't think it makes any sense to request that
the the script use /bin/sed and not just sed. Far too many packages use
just sed.
Giridhar
--
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
