there was a problem when tryiny to instal ispCP in Ubuntu

[ccercone]

Binary package hint: policyd-weight

0 actualizados, 0 se instalarán, 0 para eliminar y 0 no actualizados.
1 no instalados del todo o eliminados.
Se utilizarán 0B de espacio de disco adicional después de desempaquetar.
Configurando policyd-weight (0.1.14.17-1) ...
Starting policyd-weight: fatal: master: init:: /var/run/policyd-weight is owned by UID 0, GID 115. Exiting! at /usr/sbin/policyd-weight line 832.
invoke-rc.d: initscript policyd-weight, action "start" failed.
dpkg: error al procesar policyd-weight (--configure):
 el subproceso post-installation script devolvió el código de salida de error 255
Se encontraron errores al procesar:
 policyd-weight
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

ProblemType: Package
Architecture: amd64
Date: Sat Jul 12 14:32:54 2008
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 8.04
ErrorMessage: el subproceso post-installation script devolvió el código de salida de error 255
Package: policyd-weight 0.1.14.17-1
PackageArchitecture: all
SourcePackage: policyd-weight
Title: package policyd-weight 0.1.14.17-1 failed to install/upgrade: el subproceso post-installation script devolvió el código de salida de error 255
Uname: Linux 2.6.24-19-generic x86_64

[Jean-Baptiste Lallement (jibel)]

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. You reported this bug a while ago and there hasn't been any activity in it recently. We were wondering is this still an issue for you? Can you try with latest Ubuntu release? Thanks in advance.

[Jan Wagner (waja)]

This problem was a result of a combination of an updated upstream release und new debian package in hurry, packages < 0.1.14.17-1 did create a unsecure /var/run/policyd-weight. Removing the file and restarting the daemon or rebooting fixes the problem.

[Jan Wagner (waja)]

Anyhow ... packages <= 0.1.14-beta-6 did write the mentioned directory into /tmp/ ... so it should no problem unless you updates directly from one release to another ... it was just a problem when using hardy when it was not released and the package was upgraded to this package version.

So I think its okay to close the bug, cause the issue was just "temporary" in hardy while it was not released.