hello rolf,
 I do not understand why I got this mail as the reported bug dates back to 2009, or was there a recent report?
kind regards and thanks for your time,
giorgio fiasko



> Am 03.12.2014 um 09:23 schrieb Rolf Leggewie <email address hidden>:
> 
> maverick has seen the end of its life and is no longer receiving any
> updates. Marking the maverick task for this ticket as "Won't Fix".
> 
> ** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu Maverick)
>       Status: Fix Committed => Won't Fix
> 
> -- 
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to a
> duplicate bug report (822570).
> 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:
>  Fix Committed
> 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