package sed 4.2.1-6 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile returned error exit status 2
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
sed (Ubuntu) |
Expired
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned |
Bug Description
Binary package hint: sed
installArchives() failed: (Reading database ...
(Reading database ... 5%
(Reading database ... 10%
(Reading database ... 15%
(Reading database ... 20%
(Reading database ... 25%
(Reading database ... 30%
(Reading database ... 35%
(Reading database ... 40%
(Reading database ... 45%
(Reading database ... 50%
(Reading database ... 55%
(Reading database ... 60%
(Reading database ... 65%
(Reading database ... 70%
(Reading database ... 75%
(Reading database ... 80%
(Reading database ... 85%
(Reading database ... 90%
(Reading database ... 95%
(Reading database ... 100%
(Reading database ... 216288 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace sed 4.2.1-6 (using .../archives/
Unpacking replacement sed ...
dpkg-deb (subprocess): data: internal gzip read error: '<fd:0>: data error'
dpkg-deb: subprocess <decompress> returned error exit status 2
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/
subprocess dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile returned error exit status 2
No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already
Processing triggers for install-info ...
Processing triggers for man-db ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: sed 4.2.1-6
ProcVersionSign
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-20-generic i686
NonfreeKernelMo
Architecture: i386
Date: Sun Sep 12 20:12:00 2010
ErrorMessage: subprocess dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile returned error exit status 2
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 10.04 LTS "Lucid Lynx" - Release i386 (20100429)
SourcePackage: sed
Title: package sed 4.2.1-6 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess dpkg-deb --fsys-tarfile returned error exit status 2
Thanks for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. We appreciate the difficulties you are facing, but this appears to be a "regular" (non-security) bug. I have unmarked it as a security issue since this bug does not show evidence of allowing attackers to cross privilege boundaries nor directly cause loss of data/privacy. Please feel free to report any other bugs you may find.