package mysql-server-5.0 (not installed) failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
mysql-dfsg-5.0 (Ubuntu) |
Invalid
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Steps I took to get this bug:
- fresh install of 9.10 64-bit workstation
- ran apt-get -y update, apt-get -y upgrade, aptitude -y full-upgrade
- restarted the computer
- mounted some custom bind locations (which all had pre-existing database & website files):
/home/etc/apache2 on /etc/apache2 type none (rw,bind)
/home/etc/mysql on /etc/mysql type none (rw,bind)
/home/etc/php5 on /etc/php5 type none (rw,bind)
/home/usr-local-bin on /usr/local/bin type none (rw,bind)
/home/var-
/home/var-lib-mysql on /var/lib/mysql type none (rw,bind)
/home/www on /var/www type none (rw,bind)
- ran a bulk installation command:
apt-get -y install keepassx prism-google-mail prism-google-
- installation appeared to succeed (including asking for the MySQL root password, which I entered the same as it had been before with 9.04 64-bit)
- the final message I got was:
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
Thanks!
Luke
ProblemType: Package
Architecture: amd64
Date: Tue Nov 10 11:37:27 2009
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
ErrorMessage: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 9.10 "Karmic Koala" - Release amd64 (20091027)
Package: mysql-server-5.0 (not installed)
ProcVersionSign
SourcePackage: mysql-dfsg-5.0
Title: package mysql-server-5.0 (not installed) failed to install/upgrade: subprocess new pre-installation script returned error exit status 1
Uname: Linux 2.6.31-14-generic x86_64
I just un-mounted the following mount points and successfully installed MySQL:
/home/etc/mysql on /etc/mysql type none (rw,bind)
/home/var-lib-mysql on /var/lib/mysql type none (rw,bind)
... I then looked into the permissions of /home/var-lib-mysql - all the contents are listed as being owned by 'gdm' and group '123'.
So it looks like the user IDs are mapped differently between 9.04 and 9.10 (possibly due to package installation order?)
I consider this to be a solution, since my initial setup was fairly non-standard, but it leaves me wondering how an upgrade would have handled this situation? Or what if a user wants to copy old data files from an existing partition from 9.04 and use them under 9.10???
Anyway, hope this was helpful.
Luke