Bionic updates break upgrade (apt remove libc6-armhf-cross first)
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
cross-toolchain-base (Ubuntu) |
Triaged
|
High
|
Matthias Klose |
Bug Description
WORK AROUND: first, uninstall libc6-armhf-cross and libc6-armel-cross, then re-install the cross compiler package.
As I reported in comments on the end of Bug #1769657 "update toolchain packages for bionic" on 5th October 2018 the updates have broken the ability to upgrade package(s). Specifically, the 'dpkg --unpack' stage breaks because, from what I can tell, some of the .dpkg-new files are being deleted before they are due to be renamed:
$ sudo dpkg --unpack /var/cache/
(Reading database ... 406492 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../libc6-
Unpacking libc6-armhf-cross (2.27-3ubuntu1c
dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/
unable to open '/usr/arm-
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/
$ sudo dpkg --unpack /var/cache/
(Reading database ... 406492 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../libc6-
Unpacking libc6-dev-
dpkg: error processing archive /var/cache/
unable to open '/usr/arm-
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/
$ apt-cache policy libc6-armhf-cross
libc6-armhf-cross:
Installed: 2.27-3ubuntu1cross1
Candidate: 2.27-3ubuntu1cr
Version table:
2.
500 http://
500 http://
*** 2.27-3ubuntu1cross1 500
500 http://
500 http://
100 /var/lib/
I've analysed both failures using a combination of 'dpkg --debug 77777', strace, and inotifywait, but I've not familiar enough with the dpkg logic to determine what is going wrong.
I'm attaching debug, strace and inotifywait logs for 'libc6-armhf-cross' where 'ld-2.27.
summary: |
- Bionic updates break upgrade/install/unpack + Bionic updates break upgrade (apt remove libc6-armhf-cross first) |
I confirm this locally, the package is not upgradeable due to (I think) the switch of ./usr/arm- linux-gnueabi/ libhf/ from a symlink to a directory not being managed correctly.
Matthias, this is an SRU regression since it breaks upgrades of the package. Can you please follow through?