package procps 1:3.2.8-11ubuntu6.1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1

Bug #1240203 reported by Curtis Schroeder
This bug report is a duplicate of:  Bug #1157643: procps fail to start. Edit Remove
50
This bug affects 10 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
procps (Ubuntu)
Confirmed
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Problem occurred during btsync PPA upgrade I believe.

ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.04
Package: procps 1:3.2.8-11ubuntu6.1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.2.0-54.82-generic 3.2.50
Uname: Linux 3.2.0-54-generic x86_64
NonfreeKernelModules: nvidia
ApportVersion: 2.0.1-0ubuntu17.5
Architecture: amd64
Date: Tue Oct 15 20:07:24 2013
DuplicateSignature: package:procps:1:3.2.8-11ubuntu6.1:subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" - Release amd64 (20110427.1)
MarkForUpload: True
SourcePackage: procps
Title: package procps 1:3.2.8-11ubuntu6.1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to precise on 2012-05-03 (530 days ago)

Revision history for this message
Curtis Schroeder (publicpanther) wrote :
tags: removed: need-duplicate-check
Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

Changed in procps (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
jno (jnoster) wrote :

+ reported "changed /etc/sysctl.conf"

Revision history for this message
edubkendo (esw9999) wrote :
Revision history for this message
edubkendo (esw9999) wrote :

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1505356

Running `cat /etc/sysctl.d/*.conf /etc/sysctl.conf | sudo sysctl -p -` as this post suggests revealed the error to me, an invalid line in /etc/sysctl.d/30-nepomuk-inotify-limit.conf :

fs.inotify.max_user_watches = 524288

Commenting this out appears to have resolved the issue. Procps/dpkg or whatever is actually returning the error should return a more useful error, imo.

Revision history for this message
jno (jnoster) wrote :

/etc/sysctl.d/30-nepomuk-inotify-limit.conf -- I do not have such a file.

but `cat /etc/sysctl.d/*.conf /etc/sysctl.conf | sudo sysctl -p -` gives

error: "Invalid argument" setting key "fs.inotify.max_user_watches"

as well as

error: "kernel.maps_protect" is an unknown key
error: "sys.kernel.maps_protect" is an unknown key
error: "net.ipv4.ip_always_defrag" is an unknown key

well, `grep fs.inotify.max_user_watches /etc/sysctl.d/*.conf /etc/sysctl.conf ` gives

/etc/sysctl.d/30-spideroak.conf:fs.inotify.max_user_watches = 65536
/etc/sysctl.conf:fs.inotify.max_user_watches = 524288

The last one looks odd.

Well, no values in range 8K..512K meet the need :(

After commenting out *all* the erratic lines, it was made to work finally.

Revision history for this message
jno (jnoster) wrote :

BTW, inspecting settings with `sudo sysctl -a` gives
fs.inotify.max_user_watches = 8192

Linux XXX 3.2.0-54-generic-pae #82-Ubuntu SMP Tue Sep 10 20:29:22 UTC 2013 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 12.04.3 LTS
Release: 12.04
Codename: precise

Revision history for this message
jno (jnoster) wrote :

wow!

jno@jno:~$ ls /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
/proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches

jno@jno:~$ cat /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches
524288

Revision history for this message
Monish Kumar Desai (atqueensu) wrote :

Guys the culprit is the SpiderOak cloud sync software, It is creating the file "/etc/sysctrl.d/30-spideroak.conf" with data
fs.inotify.max_user_watches = 65536

As soon as u commment it out, error is gone.

FYI, my "cat /proc/sys/fs/inotify/max_user_watches" returns
8192
and "cat /etc/sysctl.d/*.conf /etc/sysctl.conf | sudo sysctl -p -" stops throwing any error.

Now I am able to successfully upgrade package procps

Hope it helps.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.