s'cool  i worked around it many moon ago.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Rolf Leggewie <email address hidden>
wrote:

> natty has seen the end of its life and is no longer receiving any
> updates. Marking the natty task for this ticket as "Won't Fix".
>
> ** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu Natty)
>        Status: Fix Committed => Won't Fix
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to a
> duplicate bug report (774286).
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/442941
>
> Title:
>   debconf failed to upgrade from 1.5.27ubuntu1 to 1.5.27ubuntu2: exit
>   status 128 - Use of uninitialized value $reply in scalar chomp at
>   /usr/share/perl5/Debconf/FrontEnd/Passthrough.pm line 66
>
> Status in debconf package in Ubuntu:
>   Invalid
> Status in tzdata package in Ubuntu:
>   Invalid
> Status in ubiquity package in Ubuntu:
>   Fix Released
> Status in debconf source package in Lucid:
>   Invalid
> Status in tzdata source package in Lucid:
>   Invalid
> Status in ubiquity source package in Lucid:
>   Fix Released
> Status in debconf source package in Maverick:
>   Invalid
> Status in tzdata source package in Maverick:
>   Invalid
> Status in ubiquity source package in Maverick:
>   Won't Fix
> Status in debconf source package in Natty:
>   Invalid
> Status in tzdata source package in Natty:
>   Invalid
> Status in ubiquity source package in Natty:
>   Won't Fix
> Status in debconf source package in Oneiric:
>   Invalid
> Status in tzdata source package in Oneiric:
>   Invalid
> Status in ubiquity source package in Oneiric:
>   Fix Released
>
> Bug description:
>   Stable update justification:
>
>   Impact: Due to incorrect permissions on /var/cache/debconf/config.dat,
> the first upgrade using update-manager may fail.  Other package management
> frontends that use aptdaemon may also fail on the first attempt.
>   Development branch: I've fixed this in ubiquity 2.7.11 in oneiric by
> adding the --config=Mode:0644 option to its debconf-copydb invocation.
>   Patch: https://bazaar.launchpad.net/+branch/ubiquity/revision/4769
>   TEST CASE: See comment 17.  Also check the permissions on
> /var/cache/debconf/config.dat; they should be 0644 (-rw-r--r--), but this
> bug caused them to be 0600 (-rw-------).
>   Regression potential: This change only affects new installations, not
> upgrades.  Any problems should be exposed quickly as part of milestone
> release / point release testing.  Although no point releases of 10.10 or
> 11.04 are planned, I'd like to upload this change there anyway to help out
> people building customised images.
>
>   Original report follows:
>
>   Binary package hint: debconf
>
>   Failed to report to debconf during first upgrade after installation of
>   9.10 beta. Upgrade failed.
>
>   ProblemType: Package
>   Architecture: amd64
>   Date: Mon Oct  5 09:54:06 2009
>   DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
>   ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned
> error exit status 128
>   NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
>   Package: debconf 1.5.27ubuntu2
>   PackageArchitecture: all
>   ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.31-11.36-generic
>   SourcePackage: debconf
>   Title: package debconf 1.5.27ubuntu2 failed to install/upgrade:
> subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 128
>   Uname: Linux 2.6.31-11-generic x86_64
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
>
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debconf/+bug/442941/+subscriptions
>