Your message dated Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:08:50 +1100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Re: Bug#504145: portmap: on upgrade "Cannot register service: 
RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused"
has caused the Debian Bug report #504145,
regarding portmap: on upgrade "Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; 
errno = Connection refused"
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)


-- 
504145: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=504145
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: portmap
Version: 6.0-7
Severity: normal

During my most recent aptitude upgrade on testing the terminal shows

Setting up portmap (6.0-7) ...
Installing new version of config file /etc/init.d/portmap ...
Starting portmap daemon....
Restoring old RPC service information...Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to 
receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100000    2   tcp    111  portmapper
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100000    2   udp    111  portmapper
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100003    2   udp   2049  nfs
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100003    2   tcp   2049  nfs
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100005    1   udp   1011  mountd
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100005    2   udp   1011  mountd
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100005    1   tcp   1012  mountd
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100005    2   tcp   1012  mountd
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100024    1   udp  58189  status
Cannot register service: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
not registered:     100024    1   tcp  44993  status
.


I'm not sure what it means or if it's a bug, but it looks as if
something has gone wrong.  The README mentions some potential problems
with fam, but I have not upgraded it or manually messed with it
recently.

These syslog entries may be relevant:
Oct 31 21:12:19 corn portmap: Removing stale lockfile for pid 3210
Oct 31 21:12:19 corn portmap[6725]: cannot bind tcp: Address already in use

netstat -nle does not seem to show anything listening on port 111,
which I think /etc/services designates as the portmap port.  So I'm
not sure what the problem is.  Perhaps it's some subtlety of an
upgrade which involves switching how the pid of the portmap process is
identified?



-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (990, 'stable'), (50, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-1-686 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash

Versions of packages portmap depends on:
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]         1.5.22     Debian configuration management sy
ii  libc6                         2.7-15     GNU C Library: Shared libraries
ii  libwrap0                      7.6.q-16   Wietse Venema's TCP wrappers libra
ii  lsb-base                      3.2-20     Linux Standard Base 3.2 init scrip

portmap recommends no packages.

portmap suggests no packages.

-- debconf information:
  portmap/loopback: false



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 6.0-7

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:55:39PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
>I just noticed that my root partition was full.  Maybe that caused
>something to fail during the upgrade.
>
>Ross

Closing #504145

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---

Reply via email to