package libjbig0 2.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: no package named `libjbig0' is installed, cannot configure

[rajesh]

package libjbig0 2.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: no package named `libjbig0' is installed, cannot configure

ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.10
Package: libjbig0 2.0-2ubuntu1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.5.0-2.2-generic 3.5.0-rc4
Uname: Linux 3.5.0-2-generic x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.3-0ubuntu4
Architecture: amd64
Date: Mon Jul 16 23:52:48 2012
ErrorMessage: no package named `libjbig0' is installed, cannot configure
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 12.10 "Quantal Quetzal" - Alpha amd64 (20120519)
SourcePackage: jbigkit
Title: package libjbig0 2.0-2ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: no package named `libjbig0' is installed, cannot configure
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

[Micheal Shallop (mshallop)]

Moving on in the install, libtiff5 also failed to install as libjbig0 is a dependency...

[Ryo Onodera (ryoqun)]

Hmm, I just looked into this bug.

Maybe, this is related to skype..

I want to ask other people affected by this bug.

Was skype installed at the time of upgrades?

[Utkarsh Ray (utkarshray)]

No, skype was not installed. Only this particular package failed to upgrade.

[Tristan Schmelcher (tschmelcher)]

For me, Skype _was_ installed at the time of upgrade.

[WDMARKPC (wdmarkpc)]

For me too, Skype was installed at the time of the upgrade

[Ryo Onodera (ryoqun)]

Tristan Schmelcher (tschmelcher) and WDMARKPC (wdmarkpc), thanks for answering!

My guess isn't still cetain, but I came it up from the fact that Skype requires this particular package. Usually it isn't required. My ubuntu was freshly installed recently. And it wasn't contomized a lot and had really plain setup other than Skype.

When I was upgrading, libtiff5 also failed to install like this package. Technically, I'm guessing that there may be a multiarch-related problem in libjbig0 or libtiff5. When upgrading amd64 Ubuntu with Skype i386 package installed, both amd64 and i386 versions of those packages must correctly be installed. But this didn't work due to some kind of lib package dependancy relation problem..

Utkarsh Ray (utkarshray), did your ubuntu have some third-party software packages at time of upgrading?

Also, I forgot to mention that this bug only occurs on amd64 not on i386 probably.

Fortunately, I backed my system disk up before upgrading. I'll test if upgrading works after removing Skype tomorrow.

[Utkarsh Ray (utkarshray)]

Yes, I had Google Chrome (stable) from their repository.

[Ryo Onodera (ryoqun)]

OK, I did tested after restoring my backup.

Now, I'm fairly certain this upgrade failure is caused by libqtgui4:i386, which is required by Skype. Actually this bug is not caused by Skype itself. Ubuntu pacakaging for Qt 4 has some problem. When libqtgui4:i386 is installed, the upgrade fails.

Reproducible steps:

1. Install Ubuntu 12.04 (amd64)
2. Install libqtgui4:i386
3. Upgrade to Ubuntu 12.10

So, the proper upgrade step is to ensure to remove libqtgui4 (thereby Skype too) before starting the upgrade itself.

But this is less of importance to us...

[Ryo Onodera (ryoqun)]

I'm attaching apt-get dry-run results indicating libqtgui4 issue.

To be specific, it seems that unpacking libjbig0:amd64 and libtiff5:amd64 is skipped for some reason. Then configuring those packages is started and failed. On the other hand, processing libjbig0:i386 and libtiff5:i386 is fine, it seems...

[Ryo Onodera (ryoqun)]

Today, I investigated this problem again.

I found another fact: when qdbus:amd64 isn't installed this problem does NOT occur.

[Ryo Onodera (ryoqun)]

Btw, I think it's a good idea for do-release-upgrade to run "apt-get --dry-run" to ckeck there is any problem before hand.

[Thiago Tadeu Carvalho Mourão (tmourao)]

Just to awnsering someone question. Yes, I do have the skype installed.

[Ryo Onodera (ryoqun)]

Hi, fortunately, this bug is fixed now! I confirmed.

This bug is similar to the now-fixed bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/apt/+bug/1062503