Bug#823748: tar: illegal hardware instruction breaks apt-get upgrade

2016-05-08 Thread Dirk Heinrichs
Package: tar
Version: 1.28-2.2
Severity: critical
Justification: breaks unrelated software

Dear Maintainer,

upgrading tar breaks apt-get/dpkg due to "illegal instruction" errors.

   * What led up to the situation?

   tar was upgraded: tar (1.28-2.1 => 1.28-2.2)

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
 ineffective)?

   apt-get dist-upgrade

   * What was the outcome of this action?

   All packages upgraded after tar failed during unpack:

   dpkg-deb: error: subprocess tar was killed by signal (Illegal instruction)
   dpkg: error processing archive
   /var/cache/apt/archives/libssl1.0.2_1.0.2h-1_i386.deb (--unpack):
subprocess dpkg-deb --control returned error exit status 2
   dpkg-deb: error: subprocess tar was killed by signal (Illegal instruction)
   dpkg: error processing archive 
/var/cache/apt/archives/ntp_1%3a4.2.8p7+dfsg-3_i386.deb (--unpack):
subprocess dpkg-deb --control returned error exit status 2
   dpkg-deb: error: subprocess tar was killed by signal (Illegal instruction)
   dpkg: error processing archive 
/var/cache/apt/archives/libselinux1_2.5-2_i386.deb (--unpack):
subprocess dpkg-deb --control returned error exit status 2
   Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/libssl1.0.2_1.0.2h-1_i386.deb
/var/cache/apt/archives/ntp_1%3a4.2.8p7+dfsg-3_i386.deb
/var/cache/apt/archives/libselinux1_2.5-2_i386.deb
   E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)


   * What outcome did you expect instead?

   All package upgrades should have succeeded.

I could temporarily resolve the problem by copying the previous tar
version from another box.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i586)

Kernel: Linux 4.4.7
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages tar depends on:
ii  libacl1  2.2.52-3
ii  libc62.22-7
ii  libselinux1  2.5-2

tar recommends no packages.

Versions of packages tar suggests:
ii  bzip21.0.6-8
pn  ncompress
pn  tar-scripts  
ii  xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2.1

-- no debconf information



Bug#823748: tar: illegal hardware instruction breaks apt-get upgrade

2016-05-08 Thread ydirson
Would it be related to gcc taking advantage of the drop of i565 support ?

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2016/05/msg1.html



Bug#823748: tar: illegal hardware instruction breaks apt-get upgrade

2016-05-09 Thread Lee Garrett
Hi Dirk,

which type of processor do you have on that machine? As ydirson pointed out,
older CPU types (80586 and below on the i386 architecture) are not supported
anymore in stretch.

For everyone else: I can't reproduce this bug on my Intel i5, so it's safe to
upgrade.

Regards,
Lee



Bug#823748: tar: illegal hardware instruction breaks apt-get upgrade

2016-05-09 Thread Diego Gomez
Like Lee, me neither can reproduce it on my AMD Athlon(tm) II X4 640 processor.
I think it is safe to upgrade.

Regards.

--
Diego.-



Bug#823748: tar: illegal hardware instruction breaks apt-get upgrade

2016-05-17 Thread Vlad Orlov
Hi,

This doesn't happen even in VirtualBox working on a host with an old Core 2 Duo
(both host and guest Debian installations are 64-bit). The upgrade went fine.

Bug#823748: tar: illegal hardware instruction breaks apt-get upgrade

2016-05-17 Thread Lee Garrett
On 17/05/16 14:21, Vlad Orlov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This doesn't happen even in VirtualBox working on a host with an old Core 2 
> Duo
> (both host and guest Debian installations are 64-bit). The upgrade went fine.

This is because your CPU architecture is not 32 bit, and not i586 or lower.
I'm sure if you set that by hand, you will be able to reproduce that.



Bug#823748: tar: illegal hardware instruction breaks apt-get upgrade

2016-05-18 Thread Vlad Orlov
Hi,

> This is because your CPU architecture is not 32 bit, and not i586 or lower.
> I'm sure if you set that by hand, you will be able to reproduce that.

Yes, I know. Just wanted to confirm that upgrade is safe on 64-bit systems :)