Ubuntu
flashplugin-nonfree package

package flashplugin-installer 10.2.153.1ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1

Bug #759324 reported by Adam Fowler on 2011-04-13

This bug report is a duplicate of: Bug #746758: 11.04 64bit Beta1 CD Installer crashed [no appropriate viewer found for /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so on amd64]. Edit Remove

This bug affects 1 person

Affects		Status	Importance	Assigned to	Milestone
	flashplugin-nonfree (Ubuntu)	New	Undecided	Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: flashplugin-nonfree

ubuntu 11.04 natty narwal
flashplugin-installer 10.2.153.1ubuntu1I expected the plugin to install correctly
The plug in did not install correctly

ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.04
Package: flashplugin-installer 10.2.153.1ubuntu1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.38-7.39-generic 2.6.38
Uname: Linux 2.6.38-7-generic x86_64
Architecture: amd64
Date: Sat Apr 9 01:36:57 2011
ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" - Beta amd64 (20110330)
SourcePackage: flashplugin-nonfree
Title: package flashplugin-installer 10.2.153.1ubuntu1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

Tags:

Revision history for this message

Adam Fowler (adamfowl) wrote on 2011-04-13:

AptOrdering.txt Edit (2.7 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Dependencies.txt Edit (3.4 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Df.txt Edit (381 bytes, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
Dmesg.txt Edit (87.0 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")
DpkgTerminalLog.txt Edit (14.3 KiB, text/plain; charset="utf-8")

Revision history for this message

Robert Roth (evfool) wrote on 2011-04-13:

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. This particular bug has already been reported and is a duplicate of bug #746758, so it is being marked as such. Please look at the other bug report to see if there is any missing information that you can provide, or to see if there is a workaround for the bug. Additionally, any further discussion regarding the bug should occur in the other report. Feel free to continue to report any other bugs you may find.