Re: Upgrade problems?
Adding this up here as a quick read: If this was installation via debs, I'm out of the conversation. If it was about untarring [zipped files] and you can repeatedly reproduce the issue now that you have seen this, PLEASE don't share the package name(s) publicly. They could be... dissected and then reconstructed for less than moral purposes. Cindy :) On 7/22/21, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: > On 7/21/21, Tixy wrote: >> On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 12:04 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote: >>> On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote: >>> >>> frank@fedora ~$ stat / >>>File: / >>>Size: 4096Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory >>> Device: 806h/2054d Inode: 2 Links: 18 >>> Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: (0/root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) >>> Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 >>> Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400 >>> Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400 >>> Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400 >>> Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.0 -0400 >>> >>> Looks like owned by root but access by frank ? >>> >>> Will chown work ? >> >> Also looks like / is not writeable by root, what have you done to your >> system? >> >> Didn't you have directory permissions problems before? A quick search >> throws up https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/10/msg00059.html > > > My apologies if my thread trimming glitched any. That thing about "/", > were your packages e.g. deb packages or did you untar a package or a > few? > > It's about a bug I tried to submit to Security a couple years ago. I > got shut down, kind of a cyber hand thrown up in my face. STILL "not > amused". > > It was about my own "/" multiple times over becoming owned by > something else every time I untarred one particular package. The > package would reach up two or three or so parent directories to take > over the "/" directory. > > Cindy. :) > -- > Cindy-Sue Causey > Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA > > * runs with birdseed *
Re: Upgrade problems?
On 7/21/21, Tixy wrote: > On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 12:04 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote: >> On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote: >> >> frank@fedora ~$ stat / >>File: / >>Size: 4096Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory >> Device: 806h/2054d Inode: 2 Links: 18 >> Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: (0/root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) >> Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 >> Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400 >> Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400 >> Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400 >> Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.0 -0400 >> >> Looks like owned by root but access by frank ? >> >> Will chown work ? > > Also looks like / is not writeable by root, what have you done to your > system? > > Didn't you have directory permissions problems before? A quick search > throws up https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/10/msg00059.html My apologies if my thread trimming glitched any. That thing about "/", were your packages e.g. deb packages or did you untar a package or a few? It's about a bug I tried to submit to Security a couple years ago. I got shut down, kind of a cyber hand thrown up in my face. STILL "not amused". It was about my own "/" multiple times over becoming owned by something else every time I untarred one particular package. The package would reach up two or three or so parent directories to take over the "/" directory. Cindy. :) -- Cindy-Sue Causey Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * runs with birdseed *
Re: Upgrade problems?
On 7/21/21 12:24 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:04:13PM -0400, Frank McCormick wrote: frank@fedora ~$ stat / File: / Size: 4096 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory Device: 806h/2054d Inode: 2 Links: 18 Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400 Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400 Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400 Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.0 -0400 Looks like owned by root but access by frank ? Will chown work ? Your hostname is "fedora"? Um. Skipping that for now Yes, chown would work, although chgrp would be the more "natural" pick. Either chown 0:0 / or chgrp 0 / While you're poking around in there, the permissions are also different from what one would normally expect on Debian. chmod 755 / Then again, if this isn't actually a Debian host, the 555 permissions on the root directory might be normal. Good grief! This comment stirred my memory and I realized I had rebooted into Fedora 34 AFTER I had updated Debian Bullseye. >Your hostname is "fedora"? Um. Skipping that for now > Nevertheless, I am still pullzed by those errors. Back in Debian is redid the debug suggestions. frank@franklin:~$ stat / File: / Size: 4096Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory Device: 801h/2049d Inode: 2 Links:18 Access: (0755/drwxr-xr-x) Uid: (0/root) Gid: (0/root) Access: 2021-07-21 10:28:15.256580076 -0400 Modify: 2021-07-21 10:14:11.300131364 -0400 Change: 2021-07-21 10:20:43.718277098 -0400 Birth: 2020-07-12 12:23:46.0 -0400 (sorry about the wrapping) frank@franklin:~$ ls -ld / drwxr-xr-x 18 root root 4096 Jul 21 10:14 / So "/" is owned by root with proper permissions! What now ?? Sorry folks. Frank -- Frank McCormick
Re: Upgrade problems?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 12:57 PM Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:39:49PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote: > > > > Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: (0/root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) > > > Actually, access 555 means everyone can Read and Execute, but nobody can > > Update. > > > > Root usually overrides that, which could explain why it still works. > > Yes. > > > Will chown work ? > > > > > > > Actually, chmod might work better. My system has 755, owned by Root. > > Meaning only Root can Update, but everybody can Read and Execute. > > None of that explains why systemd says the thing is considered "unsafe". > It's "unsafe" because it's owned by group "frank". > How did I miss that? The only reason I can think of, for a different Group would be for something like /var/log, so someone other than Root can read the Logs. Thus, changing the GID back to 0 is the main issue (for suppressing the > warning messages). Fixing the perms from 555 to 755 is just for a bit > of extra consistency. > That, and other layers of Security, such as selinux, where Root isn't always "god". Thanks for the clarification. Kenneth Parker >
Re: Upgrade problems?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:39:49PM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote: > > Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: (0/root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) > Actually, access 555 means everyone can Read and Execute, but nobody can > Update. > > Root usually overrides that, which could explain why it still works. Yes. > Will chown work ? > > > > Actually, chmod might work better. My system has 755, owned by Root. > Meaning only Root can Update, but everybody can Read and Execute. None of that explains why systemd says the thing is considered "unsafe". It's "unsafe" because it's owned by group "frank". Thus, changing the GID back to 0 is the main issue (for suppressing the warning messages). Fixing the perms from 555 to 755 is just for a bit of extra consistency.
Re: Upgrade problems?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 12:12 PM Frank McCormick wrote: > On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 21 2021 at 09:26:41 AM, Frank McCormick < > debianl...@videotron.ca> wrote: > >> Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye. > >> > >> > >> Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / → > >> /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition > >> / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path > >> transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe > >> > /snip/ > > frank@fedora ~$ stat / >File: / >Size: 4096Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory > Device: 806h/2054d Inode: 2 Links: 18 > Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: (0/root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) > Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 > Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400 > Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400 > Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400 > Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.0 -0400 > Looks like owned by root but access by frank ? > Actually, access 555 means everyone can Read and Execute, but nobody can Update. Root usually overrides that, which could explain why it still works. Will chown work ? > Actually, chmod might work better. My system has 755, owned by Root. Meaning only Root can Update, but everybody can Read and Execute. Thanks > Good luck. Kenneth Parker
Re: Upgrade problems?
On Wed, 2021-07-21 at 12:04 -0400, Frank McCormick wrote: > On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 21 2021 at 09:26:41 AM, Frank McCormick > > wrote: > > > Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye. > > > > > > > > > Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / → > > > /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition > > > / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path > > > transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe > > > > /snip/ > > frank@fedora ~$ stat / > File: / > Size: 4096 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory > Device: 806h/2054d Inode: 2 Links: 18 > Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) > Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 > Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400 > Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400 > Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400 > Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.0 -0400 > > Looks like owned by root but access by frank ? > > Will chown work ? Also looks like / is not writeable by root, what have you done to your system? Didn't you have directory permissions problems before? A quick search throws up https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2020/10/msg00059.html -- Tixy
Re: Upgrade problems?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:04:13PM -0400, Frank McCormick wrote: > frank@fedora ~$ stat / > File: / > Size: 4096 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory > Device: 806h/2054d Inode: 2 Links: 18 > Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) > Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 > Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400 > Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400 > Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400 > Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.0 -0400 > > Looks like owned by root but access by frank ? > > Will chown work ? Your hostname is "fedora"? Um. Skipping that for now Yes, chown would work, although chgrp would be the more "natural" pick. Either chown 0:0 / or chgrp 0 / While you're poking around in there, the permissions are also different from what one would normally expect on Debian. chmod 755 / Then again, if this isn't actually a Debian host, the 555 permissions on the root directory might be normal.
Re: Upgrade problems?
On 2021-07-21 10:52 a.m., Kushal Kumaran wrote: On Wed, Jul 21 2021 at 09:26:41 AM, Frank McCormick wrote: Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye. Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe /snip/ frank@fedora ~$ stat / File: / Size: 4096 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory Device: 806h/2054d Inode: 2 Links: 18 Access: (0555/dr-xr-xr-x) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 1000/ frank) Context: system_u:object_r:root_t:s0 Access: 2021-07-21 10:22:56.572440309 -0400 Modify: 2021-06-26 15:48:58.771330459 -0400 Change: 2021-06-27 10:10:28.333447227 -0400 Birth: 2021-06-11 13:38:48.0 -0400 Looks like owned by root but access by frank ? Will chown work ? Thanks
Re: Upgrade problems?
On Wed, Jul 21 2021 at 09:26:41 AM, Frank McCormick wrote: > Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye. > > > Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / → > /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition > / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path > transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe > path transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var/lib. Detected > unsafe path transition / → /var during canonicalization of > /var/lib/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during > canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run > during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path > transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected > unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of > /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during > canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → > /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path > transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected > unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of > /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during > canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif. Detected unsafe path > transition / → /run during canonicalization of > /run/systemd/netif. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during > canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif. > > Your / directory is not owned by root. (`ls -ld /` or `stat /` to check) > So far, doesn't seem to affect the operation of the computer. > > > Thanks -- regards, kushal
Upgrade problems?
Got a bunch of strange errors during this morning upgrade of Bullseye. Setting up systemd (247.3-6) ... Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/lock. Detected unsafe path transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var. Detected unsafe path transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var/lib. Detected unsafe path transition / → /var during canonicalization of /var/lib/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif. Detected unsafe path transition / → /run during canonicalization of /run/systemd/netif. So far, doesn't seem to affect the operation of the computer. Thanks -- Frank McCormick
Re: Help! jessie -> stretch upgrade problems
On 09/22/17 22:42, D. R. Evans wrote: I just upgraded my main desktop system (64-bit) from jessie to stretch, and there seems to be several problems, ... https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/09/msg00828.html David
[SOLVED] : Re: Help! jessie -> stretch upgrade problems
D. R. Evans wrote on 09/22/2017 11:42 PM: > I just upgraded my main desktop system (64-bit) from jessie to stretch, and > there seems to be several problems, but all probably related and caused by a > single issue somehow related to the kernel; but I don't have any idea how to > move forward. Rebooting a bunch of times (perhaps half a dozen), "solved" the problem, in that eventually "dpkg --configure -a" executed without failing. Not exactly a satisfying solution, but I'm a whole lot happier now than I was an hour ago. Now the biggest problem seems to be that the upgrade usefully removed all the KDE plasma desktop settings, so I will have to spend a bunch of time tomorrow trying to get everything back more-or-less as it was. Other minor issues remain, but google will probably help out. Doc -- Web: http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Help! jessie -> stretch upgrade problems
I just upgraded my main desktop system (64-bit) from jessie to stretch, and there seems to be several problems, but all probably related and caused by a single issue somehow related to the kernel; but I don't have any idea how to move forward. Following the upgrade: 1. the expected kernel version, 4.9.0-3-amd64, does not appear in the list of kernels at boot time; so the system boots into the old kernel, 3.14.0-4-amd64. (I notice that the grub description that is on the screen briefly still mentions wheezy, which doesn't seem right, but which I doubt is causing the problem.) 2. If I run "dpkg --configure -a", eventually all the packages that depend on DKMS fail to configure themselves (this includes virtualbox, zfs and nvidia), and nothing useful seems to happen. Here is the start of output from "dpkg --configure -a": Setting up linux-headers-4.9.0-3-amd64 (4.9.30-2+deb9u5) ... /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/dkms: Error! Bad return status for module build on kernel: 4.9.0-3-amd64 (x86_64) Consult /var/lib/dkms/virtualbox/4.3.36/build/make.log If I go and look in the make.log file, it shows a bunch of compiler warnings, and concludes by saying that some warnings were treated as errors. Similar errors occur with the other packages that use DKMS. (One result of this is that, since nvidia doesn't build, plasma won't run, because the default driver doesn't support OpenGL 2.) 3. If I execute: apt-get upgrade to try to get the latest versions of packages, I get this error: root@homebrew:/home/n7dr# apt-get upgrade E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'dpkg --configure -a' to correct the problem. root@homebrew:/home/n7dr# but, as I mentioned above, that command isn't doing anything useful. It's late, and perhaps my google-fu isn't up to snuff, but none of the searches I could think of turned up any useful suggestions. I really have no idea what to try to get out of this mess :-( Doc -- Web: http://enginehousebooks.com/drevans signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Upgrade problems (wheezy->jessie)
Hi jpff wrote: > 1) Why will vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64 not load (says loading and the does > nothing for over 30mins) when vmlinuz-3.2.0-4-amd64 does load? > don't know - I had same issue In my case I found out that initrd was broken. I still have to unpack the initrd copy /sbin/switch_root and package initrd again, so that I can boot. Why this - I don't know ... > 2) Is it OK to run with the older kernel? > yes, I ran jessie almost 2y with 3.2.0.4-amd64 - nothing wrong happened, no problems > 3) More importantly will it happen on Jessie->Stretch as climbing up > to dismantle the local net is hard (I have a balance issue) or is > there a way of testing before rebooting? > Perhaps you make a copy to virtual machine or another computer and try it there first changes are usually not applied directly to productive systems, you do it on a test system first and take notes - best write step by step guide further more read carefully the upgrade instructions provided by debian. If you stick to them, you usually won't have problems. regards
Re: Upgrade problems (wheezy->jessie)
On 09/20/17 08:32, jpff wrote: I seem to need to upgrade to Debian stretch to install my printer as it needs hplip 3.16.11, ad I was running wheezy. ... While some people succeed at major version upgrades, the few times I have attempted it resulted in breakage, frustration, and lots of wasted time and energy. Now I backup my configuration settings, remove the old system drive, take an image of the old system drive, install a new/ zeroed/ secure erased system drive, do a fresh install, migrate my configuration settings, and test each subsystem as I go. If everything works, I'm done. If not, I lower my expectations, find another distribution, and/or build another computer, and restart from "do a fresh install". I have reached two conclusions: 1. Upgrading software is the act of replacing an existing, partially-known set of bugs with a another set of bugs -- some old, some new, some known, some unknown. 2. Software distributors never fix 100% of their bugs -- they make a new release, abandon the old release, and declare victory. David
Upgrade problems (wheezy->jessie)
I seem to need to upgrade to Debian stretch to install my printer as it needs hplip 3.16.11, ad I was running wheezy. I understand this needs to be done in two stages, wheezy->jessie->stretch, but I still need advice as I cannot find out the solution to my problem. I tried upgrading from Wheezy to Jessie using apt-get upgrade and apt-get dist-upgrade as the instructions said. All seemed OK until disaster struck when the Jessie failed to reboot. As the computer is headless I had to dismantle it all, loose the internet to the entire LAN, and find USB keyboard and dvi cable for screen. Eventually discovered that the kernel installed with Jessie did not load, but the previous kernel did. An hour or so thinking and I managed to get autobooting to work so re-installed with internet and hidden location , and eventually communication resumed. But... 1) Why will vmlinuz-3.16.0-4-amd64 not load (says loading and the does nothing for over 30mins) when vmlinuz-3.2.0-4-amd64 does load? 2) Is it OK to run with the older kernel? 3) More importantly will it happen on Jessie->Stretch as climbing up to dismantle the local net is hard (I have a balance issue) or is there a way of testing before rebooting? Any help very welcome ==John ff
Re: Sid upgrade problems
Frank McCormick wrote: On 18/04/12 12:57 AM, Frank McCormick wrote: This is what I saw after the last upgrade on my Sid installation: Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ... dpkg: warning: version 'v' has bad syntax: version number does not start with digit update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-v dpkg: warning: version 'v' has bad syntax: version number does not start with digit WARNING: missing /lib/modules/v Device driver support needs thus be built-in linux image! FATAL: v: not absolute path. ERROR: could not open directory /var/tmp/mkinitramfs_CEjqBs/lib/modules/3.2.0-2-686-pae: No such file or directory FATAL: could not search modules: No such file or directory Anybody else having this problem ? Answering my own question - there was a file in /var/lib/initramfs containing only the single letter v...that was causing the problem. Don't ask how it got there...I dunno. Sorry for the noise. That should be /var/lib/initramfs-tools? Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/jmn1uk$26g$1...@dough.gmane.org
Re: Sid upgrade problems
On 18/04/12 02:42 PM, hvw59601 wrote: Frank McCormick wrote: On 18/04/12 12:57 AM, Frank McCormick wrote: This is what I saw after the last upgrade on my Sid installation: Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ... dpkg: warning: version 'v' has bad syntax: version number does not start with digit update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-v dpkg: warning: version 'v' has bad syntax: version number does not start with digit WARNING: missing /lib/modules/v Device driver support needs thus be built-in linux image! FATAL: v: not absolute path. ERROR: could not open directory /var/tmp/mkinitramfs_CEjqBs/lib/modules/3.2.0-2-686-pae: No such file or directory FATAL: could not search modules: No such file or directory Anybody else having this problem ? Answering my own question - there was a file in /var/lib/initramfs containing only the single letter v...that was causing the problem. Don't ask how it got there...I dunno. Sorry for the noise. That should be /var/lib/initramfs-tools? Hugo Yes, of course. It was a late night :) -- Cheers Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8f0f16.1070...@videotron.ca
Sid upgrade problems
This is what I saw after the last upgrade on my Sid installation: Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ... dpkg: warning: version 'v' has bad syntax: version number does not start with digit update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-v dpkg: warning: version 'v' has bad syntax: version number does not start with digit WARNING: missing /lib/modules/v Device driver support needs thus be built-in linux image! FATAL: v: not absolute path. ERROR: could not open directory /var/tmp/mkinitramfs_CEjqBs/lib/modules/3.2.0-2-686-pae: No such file or directory FATAL: could not search modules: No such file or directory Anybody else having this problem ? -- Cheers Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8e49ce.2020...@videotron.ca
Re: Sid upgrade problems
On 18/04/12 12:57 AM, Frank McCormick wrote: This is what I saw after the last upgrade on my Sid installation: Processing triggers for initramfs-tools ... dpkg: warning: version 'v' has bad syntax: version number does not start with digit update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-v dpkg: warning: version 'v' has bad syntax: version number does not start with digit WARNING: missing /lib/modules/v Device driver support needs thus be built-in linux image! FATAL: v: not absolute path. ERROR: could not open directory /var/tmp/mkinitramfs_CEjqBs/lib/modules/3.2.0-2-686-pae: No such file or directory FATAL: could not search modules: No such file or directory Anybody else having this problem ? Answering my own question - there was a file in /var/lib/initramfs containing only the single letter v...that was causing the problem. Don't ask how it got there...I dunno. Sorry for the noise. -- Cheers Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f8e4c84.10...@videotron.ca
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 16:24:05 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/12/2010 04:16 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:04:07 Jordan Metzmeier wrote: This issue is because the new udev requires a .31 kernel with sysrq_deprecated=n (I am going off memory here so don't quote me). This means you need to first upgrade to the squeeze kernel, reboot, then upgrade udev and proceed with the updgrade. Added Tag: needs-to-be-in-release-notes To heck with the Release Notes! This needs to be front and center when you when you do the apt-get update. This issue has been mentioned in /usr/share/doc/udev/NEWS.gz repeatedly, so you will be made aware of the problem in time to stop the upgrade if you use apt-listchanges with its default settings. (At least if you use aptitude; I would assume that apt-listchanges interacts the same way with apt-get.) -- Regards,| Florian | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100513102830.ga27...@bavaria.univ-lyon1.fr
Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
I just tried to upgrade my Lenny installation to Squeeze using the following method: I changed my sources.list from deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ lenny main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ lenny main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main contrib non-free deb http://volatile.debian.org/debian-volatile lenny/volatile main contrib non-free deb-src http://volatile.debian.org/debian-volatile lenny/volatile main contrib non-free deb http://download.tuxfamily.org/shames/debian-lenny/desktopfx/unstable/ ./ deb http://ansani.it/debian/ stable contrib deb http://ftp.uni-kl.de/debian-multimedia/ stable main deb-src http://ftp.uni-kl.de/debian-multimedia/ stable main deb http://www.backports.org/debian lenny-backports main contrib non-free to deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main contrib non-free deb http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free deb http://download.tuxfamily.org/shames/debian-lenny/desktopfx/unstable/ ./ deb http://ansani.it/debian/ testing contrib deb http://ftp.uni-kl.de/debian-multimedia/ testing main deb-src http://ftp.uni-kl.de/debian-multimedia/ stable main I then proceeded to execute `aptitude update` `aptitude full-upgrade` Then it did the usual stuff of resolving the conflicts and the resulting solution seemed fine to me. I accepted it and it started installing. All was going fine, until I started to notice that a lot of xserver-xorg packages were being left unconfigured. All seemed to fail because xserver-xorg-core was not configured yet, which in turn failed because a udev related package was not configured yet. Aptitude then died with the message that there were too many errors to proceed. It looks to me as if aptitude is executing the configuration step in the wrong order. Clearly, it should configure udev first, then xorg-core and then the xorg driver packages. Am I missing something here, might it have something to do with my particular makeup of the sources.list file? I'm a bit lost, and I would like to upgrade to Squeeze without resorting to a full clean install. In the end I managed to restore a backup image I made moments before, so I didn't lose anything. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
This issue is because the new udev requires a .31 kernel with sysrq_deprecated=n (I am going off memory here so don't quote me). This means you need to first upgrade to the squeeze kernel, reboot, then upgrade udev and proceed with the updgrade. -- Jordan Metzmeier
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 05:04:07PM -0400, Jordan Metzmeier wrote: This issue is because the new udev requires a .31 kernel with sysrq_deprecated=n (I am going off memory here so don't quote me). This means you need to first upgrade to the squeeze kernel, reboot, then upgrade udev and proceed with the updgrade. I do remember seeing something shoot by with that message, but I didnt think anything of it at the time. I will try this, and see what happens. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:04:07 Jordan Metzmeier wrote: This issue is because the new udev requires a .31 kernel with sysrq_deprecated=n (I am going off memory here so don't quote me). This means you need to first upgrade to the squeeze kernel, reboot, then upgrade udev and proceed with the updgrade. Added Tag: needs-to-be-in-release-notes -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
On 05/12/2010 04:16 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:04:07 Jordan Metzmeier wrote: This issue is because the new udev requires a .31 kernel with sysrq_deprecated=n (I am going off memory here so don't quote me). This means you need to first upgrade to the squeeze kernel, reboot, then upgrade udev and proceed with the updgrade. Added Tag: needs-to-be-in-release-notes To heck with the Release Notes! This needs to be front and center when you when you do the apt-get update. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4beb1c75.6080...@cox.net
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:24:05PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/12/2010 04:16 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:04:07 Jordan Metzmeier wrote: This issue is because the new udev requires a .31 kernel with sysrq_deprecated=n (I am going off memory here so don't quote me). This means you need to first upgrade to the squeeze kernel, reboot, then upgrade udev and proceed with the updgrade. Added Tag: needs-to-be-in-release-notes To heck with the Release Notes! This needs to be front and center when you when you do the apt-get update. It does appear when you do the aptitude full-upgrade, but it doesn't block the output, it just shoots by. I do wonder how they will handle this when squeeze gets stable. The whole update your kernel, reboot, update the rest is a bit too easy to fuck up for my taste. I completely assumed that I could just change the apt sources.list and do the full-upgrade. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:27:08 Nick Douma wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:24:05PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/12/2010 04:16 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:04:07 Jordan Metzmeier wrote: This issue is because the new udev requires a .31 kernel with sysrq_deprecated=n (I am going off memory here so don't quote me). This means you need to first upgrade to the squeeze kernel, reboot, then upgrade udev and proceed with the updgrade. Added Tag: needs-to-be-in-release-notes To heck with the Release Notes! This needs to be front and center when you when you do the apt-get update. It does appear when you do the aptitude full-upgrade, but it doesn't block the output, it just shoots by. I do wonder how they will handle this when squeeze gets stable. The whole update your kernel, reboot, update the rest is a bit too easy to fuck up for my taste. I completely assumed that I could just change the apt sources.list and do the full-upgrade. You should *always* read the release notes first. It is actually rather rare that a release just needs an 'aptitude full-upgrade'. Usually, perl, apt, aptitude, or dpkg should be updated first. In this case, we need a kernel upgrade followed by a reboot. It's not nice, especially since I think that will make this upgrade a two-reboot process instead of the normal one-reboot process. Hopefully, this will get addressed in the udev packaging -- *most* of the time programs are required to support running on the previous release's kernel for specifically this reason. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:44:12PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:27:08 Nick Douma wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:24:05PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/12/2010 04:16 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:04:07 Jordan Metzmeier wrote: This issue is because the new udev requires a .31 kernel with sysrq_deprecated=n (I am going off memory here so don't quote me). This means you need to first upgrade to the squeeze kernel, reboot, then upgrade udev and proceed with the updgrade. Added Tag: needs-to-be-in-release-notes To heck with the Release Notes! This needs to be front and center when you when you do the apt-get update. It does appear when you do the aptitude full-upgrade, but it doesn't block the output, it just shoots by. I do wonder how they will handle this when squeeze gets stable. The whole update your kernel, reboot, update the rest is a bit too easy to fuck up for my taste. I completely assumed that I could just change the apt sources.list and do the full-upgrade. You should *always* read the release notes first. It is actually rather rare that a release just needs an 'aptitude full-upgrade'. Usually, perl, apt, aptitude, or dpkg should be updated first. Well, I did try to look for release notes, but I did not find any for Squeeze. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lenny to Squeeze upgrade problems
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 17:07:09 Nick Douma wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:44:12PM -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Wednesday 12 May 2010 16:27:08 Nick Douma wrote: On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 04:24:05PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/12/2010 04:16 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: Added Tag: needs-to-be-in-release-notes To heck with the Release Notes! This needs to be front and center when you when you do the apt-get update. It does appear when you do the aptitude full-upgrade, but it doesn't block the output, it just shoots by. I do wonder how they will handle this when squeeze gets stable. The whole update your kernel, reboot, update the rest is a bit too easy to fuck up for my taste. I completely assumed that I could just change the apt sources.list and do the full-upgrade. You should *always* read the release notes first. It is actually rather rare that a release just needs an 'aptitude full-upgrade'. Usually, perl, apt, aptitude, or dpkg should be updated first. Well, I did try to look for release notes, but I did not find any for Squeeze. Yeah, they usually don't get worked on until after the testing freeze. They will be fairly complete by the time Squeeze is released. Until then, you are on your own; upgrades from stable to testing are sometimes tested throughout the stable life cycle, but all the issues aren't addressed until it's better known what will actually be in the new stable. If you want testing, best to install testing, really. Stable and the upgrade is possible, but it's actually slower. (It might be the best way is the testing d-i is broken, though.) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
aptitude upgrade problems
Hello, I am using Lenny. When I try to upgrade, this is what happens: # aptitude safe-upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Reading extended state information Initializing package states... Done Reading task descriptions... Done Resolving dependencies... Resolving dependencies... Resolving dependencies... Resolving dependencies... Resolving dependencies... Resolving dependencies... Resolving dependencies... Resolving dependencies... The following packages have unmet dependencies: cvsnt: Conflicts: cvs but 1:1.12.13-12 is installed. The following is my sources.list: $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list # # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.0 _Lenny_ - Official i386 NETINST Binary-1 20090214-16:03]/ lenny main #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.0 _Lenny_ - Official i386 NETINST Binary-1 20090214-16:03]/ lenny main deb http://ftp.ie.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main non-free contrib deb-src http://ftp.ie.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main non-free contrib deb http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free deb-src http://security.debian.org/ squeeze/updates main contrib non-free deb http://volatile.debian.org/debian-volatile squeeze/volatile main contrib non-free deb-src http://volatile.debian.org/debian-volatile squeeze/volatile main contrib non-free deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org squeeze main deb http://apt.wicd.net squeeze extras deb http://www.openprinting.org/download/printdriver/debian/ lsb3.2 main Any ideas? John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1f1816a91003230657p29fff3dala02fb15f0aac1...@mail.gmail.com
Re: aptitude upgrade problems
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 13:57 +, John O Laoi wrote: # aptitude safe-upgrade [...] cvsnt: Conflicts: cvs but 1:1.12.13-12 is installed. [...] Any ideas? I assume that aptitude needs to remove a package in order to satisfy other packages (cvsnt) dependencies/conflicts. Try full-upgrade instead of safe-upgrade -- .''`. Wolodja Wentlandwentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de : :' : `. `'` 4096R/CAF14EFC `- 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: aptitude upgrade problems
On 2010-03-23 08:57, John O Laoi wrote: Hello, I am using Lenny. When I try to upgrade, this is what happens: # aptitude safe-upgrade Reading package lists... Done [snip] Resolving dependencies... The following packages have unmet dependencies: cvsnt: Conflicts: cvs but 1:1.12.13-12 is installed. The following is my sources.list: $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list # # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.0 _Lenny_ - Official i386 NETINST Binary-1 20090214-16:03]/ lenny main #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.0 _Lenny_ - Official i386 NETINST Binary-1 20090214-16:03]/ lenny main Why the mixed system? deb http://ftp.ie.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main non-free contrib deb-src http://ftp.ie.debian.org/debian/ squeeze main non-free contrib [snip] Any ideas? cvsnt conflicts with cvs. You can't have both at the same time. -- History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. Dwight Eisenhower -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba8ccfb.8070...@cox.net
aptitude upgrade problems
The following is my sources.list: $ cat /etc/apt/sources.list # # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.0 _Lenny_ - Official i386 NETINST Binary-1 20090214-16:03]/ lenny main #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 5.0.0 _Lenny_ - Official i386 NETINST Binary-1 20090214-16:03]/ lenny main Why the mixed system? Apologies, I am using Squeeze. The Lenny CDs are commented out. cvsnt conflicts with cvs. You can't have both at the same time. Should I remove one of them, and if so, which one? Wolodja : aptitude full-upgrade appears that it will work. Is it safe to proceed with? I am not clear on the difference between upgarde, safe-upgrade and full-upgrade. Thanks, John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1f1816a91003230825l25297158u88b0da88f6cbf...@mail.gmail.com
Re: aptitude upgrade problems
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 15:25 +, John O Laoi wrote: Why the mixed system? Apologies, I am using Squeeze. The Lenny CDs are commented out. Important information - make sure to mention it next time. cvsnt conflicts with cvs. You can't have both at the same time. Should I remove one of them, and if so, which one? Remove the one you don't want. Read their descriptions: aptitude show cvs cvsnt Wolodja : aptitude full-upgrade appears that it will work. Is it safe to proceed with? Hard to say, without knowing which packages are going to be removed, but I would be surprised if something bad™ happens. I am not clear on the difference between upgarde, safe-upgrade and full-upgrade. Read the manpage - In a nutshell: upgrade Deprecated safe-upgradeUpgrade listed/all packages to newest version, don't remove packages full-upgradeDo whatever actions it takes to upgrade packages to their latest version -- .''`. Wolodja Wentlandwentl...@cl.uni-heidelberg.de : :' : `. `'` 4096R/CAF14EFC `- 081C B7CD FF04 2BA9 94EA 36B2 8B7F 7D30 CAF1 4EFC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: aptitude upgrade problems
On 2010-03-23 10:32, Wolodja Wentland wrote: [snip] Read the manpage - In a nutshell: upgrade Deprecated safe-upgradeUpgrade listed/all packages to newest version, don't remove packages don't remove packages That's why OP is getting the failure. cvs and cvsnt conflict, but safe-upgrade won't remove either one of them, so fails nicely. full-upgradeDo whatever actions it takes to upgrade packages to their latest version -- History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. Dwight Eisenhower -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ba8e4fa.4010...@cox.net
Safe-upgrade problems
Hey all An upgrade on sid on 12/18 as me stumped. The bootup of that partition hangs at USBHID 2.6 . Have tried on 2 different kernels and both just stop. A testing upgrade on 12/17 and another on 12/19 boot but have a number of programs failing to start. Clanv, Dovecot, atd, and firehol. I have traced that to a change of permissions in /dev/null. ls -l /dev/null should be crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 1, 3 2009-12-20 05:55 /dev/null but shows up after reboot as crw- --- --- 1 root staff 1, 3 2009-12-20 05:55 /dev/null I can change the permissions back to the correct settings and init.d the 4 programs and all is well until the next bootup. I guess that one of the 'many' programs upgraded on the 17th is changing the dev/null permissions but finding which one' is not going to be easy. Just a heads up to testing users. I didn't even notice it until a few programs I run with 'at' threw the errors. Wayne -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Debian Etch Upgrade Problems with Mail Check Applet and Evolution
Hello, I've recently upgraded from Sarge to Etch (the full monty, I'm now running a 2.6 kernel) and my mail check applet has gone away, and the evolution package is still marked conspicuously as a sarge package - ic evolution 2.0.4-2sarge1 The groupware suite When I tried to download the source for the mail notification applet from the GNOME site, I couldn't find the development packages to install to compile it. It's missing libgnomeui-2 - Perhaps you should add the directory containing `libgnomeui-2.0.pc' to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable No package 'libgnomeui-2.0' found Is this a known problem to someone? I've began to wonder if the package list I've downloaded is incomplete or munged, and if there is a safe way to tell the server to give me the whole package list again, instead of diff files. Anybody have any hints or diagnostic techniques I can try, or am I simply making bad assumptions, and Etch is as it's supposed to be (a Sarge version of evolution, no mail check applet, and the source on the GNOME web site is not compilable on a Debian Etch box)? Thanks, John S. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kernel upgrade problems (again) - 2.6.11 - 2.6.18, video pooched
I tried upgrading the kernel today on my machine and have a problem that is very similar to about a year ago... that I never completely figured-out. I think the problem I'm having is the same as before-- and it's described here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2006/07/msg03029.html I downgraded the kernel to 2.6.11 (in Jul 2006) when I encountered the problem-- and the problems all went away. Someone suggested the problem is hotplug... this time I purged hotplug with: # aptitude purge hotplug - Today I upgraded to 2.6.18-3-686 from kernel-image-2.6.11-1-686 (image for version 2.6.11 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/P4). # apt-get install linux-image-2.6.18-3-686 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: initramfs-tools Suggested packages: linux-doc-2.6.18 Recommended packages: libc6-i686 The following NEW packages will be installed: initramfs-tools linux-image-2.6.18-3-686 0 upgraded, 2 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded. Need to get 16.8MB of archives. After unpacking 51.2MB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Y Get:1 http://ftp.is.debian.org testing/main initramfs-tools 0.85e [62.5kB] Get:2 http://ftp.is.debian.org testing/main linux-image-2.6.18-3-686 2.6.18-7 [16.7MB] Fetched 16.8MB in 30s (541kB/s) Preconfiguring packages ... Selecting previously deselected package initramfs-tools. (Reading database ... 96363 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking initramfs-tools (from .../initramfs-tools_0.85e_all.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package linux-image-2.6.18-3-686. Unpacking linux-image-2.6.18-3-686 (from .../linux-image-2.6.18-3-686_2.6.18-7_i386.deb) ... Done. Setting up initramfs-tools (0.85e) ... Installing new version of config file /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf ... /boot/initrd.img-2.6.11-1-686 has been altered. Cannot update. Setting up linux-image-2.6.18-3-686 (2.6.18-7) ... Hmm. The package shipped with a symbolic link /lib/modules/2.6.18-3-686/source However, I can not read the target: No such file or directory Therefore, I am deleting /lib/modules/2.6.18-3-686/source Running depmod. Finding valid ramdisk creators. Using mkinitramfs-kpkg to build the ramdisk. You already have a LILO configuration in /etc/lilo.conf Running boot loader as requested Testing lilo.conf ... Testing successful. Installing the partition boot sector... Running /sbin/lilo ... Installation successful. cobalamin:/home/michael# # apt-get install libc6-i686 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done The following NEW packages will be installed: libc6-i686 0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded. Need to get 1117kB of archives. After unpacking 2535kB of additional disk space will be used. Get:1 http://ftp.is.debian.org testing/main libc6-i686 2.3.6.ds1-11 [1117kB] Fetched 1117kB in 3s (302kB/s) Selecting previously deselected package libc6-i686. (Reading database ... 98546 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking libc6-i686 (from .../libc6-i686_2.3.6.ds1-11_i386.deb) ... Setting up libc6-i686 (2.3.6.ds1-11) ... cobalamin:/home/michael# -copying bootsector # dd if=/dev/hda3 of=/home/michael/transfer/bootsect-2.6.18-3.lnx bs=512 count=1 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 512 bytes transferred in 0.076084 seconds (6729 bytes/sec) -boot into windows replace stuff -edit C:\boot.ini -reboot Upgrade worked but... -- it's new kernel $ more /proc/version Linux version 2.6.18-3-686 (Debian 2.6.18-7) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.1 .2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-20)) #1 SMP Mon Dec 4 16:41:14 UTC 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ -sound pooched -- not much of a concern... at the moment. -video pooched -- there are horizontal line -- that come and go (it sort of looks like the refresh rate is too high). I didn't change any settings in X. I noticed a fuzziness in the text -- while linux booted up. The video problem were not seen in with the older kernel and were not seen in Windoze XP. Is this somehow related to libc6 ??? Could this be a driver issue? Aside from that... I don't understand the consequence of: --- Hmm. The package shipped with a symbolic link /lib/modules/2.6.18-3-686/source However, I can not read the target: No such file or directory Therefore, I am deleting /lib/modules/2.6.18-3-686/source --- Any suggestions would be much appreciated. -Thanks, Michael System/Hardware Toshiba Satellite A20 -- A20-31Q: 2.53GHz (PSA20C-0231Q) Processor: Intel Pentium IV, 2.53GHz Memory: 512 MB Install log: http://individual.utoronto.ca/bonert/debian_install.html Debian GNU/Linux release: testing Kernel: Linux version 2.6.11-1-686 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 3.3.6 (Debian 1:3.3.6-6)) #1 Mon Jun 20 22:00:38 MDT 2005 -- Ist Ihr Browser
etch upgrade problems (was Re: update messages)
I'm now trying to work out why apt-get install libx11-dev results in apt wanting to delete a large number of X related packages... I noted that 'gnome' was one of the packages to be removed rather then upgraded to the latest version, so I tried to force an upgrade to see if there was some impediment to that: apt-get install gnome This produces the output: fujitsu:/var/log# apt-get install gnome Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that the package is simply not installable and a bug report against that package should be filed. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies. gnome: Depends: gnome-desktop-environment (= 1:2.14.3.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-office (= 1:2.14.3.3) but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages I then repeated this for gnome-desktop-environment to find out why it is 'not going to be installed', and that produced: The following packages have unmet dependencies. gnome-desktop-environment: Depends: gnome-core (= 1:2.14.3.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: nautilus-cd-burner (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: fast-user-switch-applet (= 2.14.2) but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages Next I try one of those dependencies (gnome-core) and get: The following packages have unmet dependencies. gnome-core: Depends: bug-buddy (= 2.12.1) but it is not going to be installed Depends: eog (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gedit (= 2.14.4) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-applets (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-control-center (= 1:2.14.2) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-menus (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-panel (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-session (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: gnome-terminal (= 2.14.2) but it is not going to be installed Depends: nautilus (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed Depends: yelp (= 2.14.3) but it is not going to be installed E: Broken packages And finally: fujitsu:/var/log# apt-get install gnome-session Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done gnome-session is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 507 not upgraded. So does anyone have any idea why 'gnome-session' is a problem dependency for gnome-core (saying it is not going to be installed), when the lastest version (2.14.3-3) is already installed ??? I really can't follow what apt is complaining about here - are there any gurus out there that can explain why I can't upgrade to the latest gnome?? Regards, DigbyT -- Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com http://www.digbyt.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gnucash/libffi upgrade problems: work-around
I just did a dist-upgrade in testing and ended up unable to proceed or back up with the install, and key system services (e.g., DNS) not running. If this should happen to affect you, I finally worked around it by doing(*) apt-get -remove libffi libgwrap-runtime0-dev g-wrap gnucash The upgrade proceeded after the packages were removed, and apt-get install gnucash then installed gnucash and dependents without complaint. The new gnucash depends on libffi4, but libffi claimed some of the same files, so dpkg would not unpack libffi4. The bug-tracking system says there is no libffi; it's probably a leftover from much earlier days. libffi4 is part of the gcc-4.2 source package. If you want more details, see bug 387561. Ross Boylan (*) If you have different packages, the basic process began with apt-get remove libffi and then kept adding the packages that the resulting command complained about. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
[Kevin Mark] I thought that 'reinstall' seems very time consuming and thought that there may be a diffent way to do it. Would this work for (most|all)? cheers, Yes, I believe so. So the latest incarnation of the script to fix this problem uses this apporach. It is in sysv-rc version 2.86.ds1-19. Friendly, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
[Bastian Venthur] Looks like there is still something left to do for the user after this step. Eg, on my machine KDM did not start up automatically anymore, as well as WLAN. Those are two things I encountered directly and are probably easy to fix, but I'm quite uncertain if there is something else broken in the background I'm not aware of. I suspect you ran into the problem with removed but not purged packages being reinstalled, where they would throw out conflicting packages which were installed. fam would for example throw out kde. Is there an easy solution to check and fix all involved packages at once? You can look in /var/log/dpkg.log for the packages that was removed, and reinstall them. Again, sorry for the mess. :( Friendly, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 17:25:41 -0700, Paul Scott wrote:
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Sorry for the noise. Here is yet another script fragment, this time
to extract the list of installed and upgraded packages in the
dangerous period. I did not know about the /var/log/dpkg.log file
before this morning.
sed -n /installed sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16/,/installed sysvinit
2.86.ds1-18/p /var/log/dpkg.log |
awk '/ upgrade / { print $4 } / installed / { print $5 }' | sort -u
These packages, if they contain an init.d script, are the ones needing
a reinstall.
At the moment I have to carry the files on a floppy to the problem
computer (a half hour away) since this broke my wireless. I am going to
try hostapd, wireless-tools, and pcmciautils. Does that sound about right?
Also sysvinit 2.86.dsl-18 is not yet available for sid AFAICT.
You can wget version -19 directly from the main Debian server:
http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/s/sysvinit/sysv-rc_2.86.ds1-19_all.deb
and install it with dpkg -i. This version has a suggestion for a
better way to fix all links: As others have already pointed out in the
bug report and in this thread, it is sufficient to run dpkg-reconfigure
-u on the broken packages. That is a lot faster than the reinstall,
especially for you since it should work without net access.
--
Regards,
Florian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
Sorry for the noise. Here is yet another script fragment, this time
to extract the list of installed and upgraded packages in the
dangerous period. I did not know about the /var/log/dpkg.log file
before this morning.
sed -n /installed sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16/,/installed sysvinit
2.86.ds1-18/p /var/log/dpkg.log |
awk '/ upgrade / { print $4 } / installed / { print $5 }' | sort -u
These packages, if they contain an init.d script, are the ones needing
a reinstall.
At the moment I have to carry the files on a floppy to the problem
computer (a half hour away) since this broke my wireless. I am going to
try hostapd, wireless-tools, and pcmciautils. Does that sound about right?
Also sysvinit 2.86.dsl-18 is not yet available for sid AFAICT.
Paul Scott
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
Hi Petter, On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 07:22:53PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: In version 2.86.ds1-16 of the sysv-rc package released 2006-09-06, the update-rc.d script was broken. When used to to update symlinks it would remove all symlinks for a init.d script if such symlinks existed, and add them if they were missing. This broke all packages being upgraded after the new version was installed, as their init.d scripts will no longer be executed. This problem was fixed in version 2.86.ds1-18, but the broken packages will stay broken until their postinst scripts are executed again. Those with packages being broken from this bug can fix it by using 'apt-get --reinstall install package' on the affected packages. A quick way out is to reinstall all the packages with scripts in /etc/init.d/. for p in `dpkg -S /etc/init.d/*|cut -d: -f1|sort -u`; do apt-get --reinstall install -y $p done I'm sorry for the problems I have caused. Friendly, -- As a test, on my working unstable system, I did this: I made a note of the current links for 'cron' ran 'rm /etc/rc*.d/*cron' ran '/etc/init.d/cron stop' ran 'bash /var/lib/dpkg/info/cron.postinst' and found it to restore the default setup. I thought that 'reinstall' seems very time consuming and thought that there may be a diffent way to do it. Would this work for (most|all)? cheers, Kev -- | .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: | | : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com | | `. `' Operating System| go to counter.li.org and | | `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656 | | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
Sorry for the noise. Here is yet another script fragment, this time
to extract the list of installed and upgraded packages in the
dangerous period. I did not know about the /var/log/dpkg.log file
before this morning.
sed -n /installed sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16/,/installed sysvinit 2.86.ds1-18/p
/var/log/dpkg.log |
awk '/ upgrade / { print $4 } / installed / { print $5 }' | sort -u
These packages, if they contain an init.d script, are the ones needing
a reinstall.
Friendly,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
In version 2.86.ds1-16 of the sysv-rc package released 2006-09-06, the update-rc.d script was broken. When used to to update symlinks it would remove all symlinks for a init.d script if such symlinks existed, and add them if they were missing. This broke all packages being upgraded after the new version was installed, as their init.d scripts will no longer be executed. This problem was fixed in version 2.86.ds1-18, but the broken packages will stay broken until their postinst scripts are executed again. Those with packages being broken from this bug can fix it by using 'apt-get --reinstall install package' on the affected packages. A quick way out is to reinstall all the packages with scripts in /etc/init.d/. for p in `dpkg -S /etc/init.d/*|cut -d: -f1|sort -u`; do apt-get --reinstall install -y $p done I'm sorry for the problems I have caused. Friendly, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
[Petter Reinholdtsen] A quick way out is to reinstall all the packages with scripts in /etc/init.d/. This way proved to be too quick, trying to reinstall removed but not purged packages with init.d scripts left behind in /etc/init.d/. I recommend using something like this instead, to only reinstall the installed packages: for p in `dpkg -S /etc/init.d/*|cut -d: -f1|sort -u`; do if dpkg --get-selections $p | grep -qw install ; then echo reinstalling $p apt-get --reinstall install $p fi done I dropped the '-y' flag too, to leave more manual control over the process, after a report from a user getting a lot of KDE removed when the removed fam package tried to reinstall and throw out KDE. Friendly, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade problems for sysvinit 2.86.ds1-16 - 2.86.ds1-18
Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Those with packages being broken from this bug can fix it by using 'apt-get --reinstall install package' on the affected packages. A quick way out is to reinstall all the packages with scripts in /etc/init.d/. for p in `dpkg -S /etc/init.d/*|cut -d: -f1|sort -u`; do apt-get --reinstall install -y $p done Looks like there is still something left to do for the user after this step. Eg, on my machine KDM did not start up automatically anymore, as well as WLAN. Those are two things I encountered directly and are probably easy to fix, but I'm quite uncertain if there is something else broken in the background I'm not aware of. Is there an easy solution to check and fix all involved packages at once? Cheers, Bastian -- Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: post-2.6 upgrade problems
Thanks, Nicos. Unfortunately, the new initscripts wants libc6 = 2.3.2. I tried to manually mount devpts but the problem remained. Will 2.6 and stable just not jive? I'm ok sticking with 2.4.27 if that's the case, I just need to get away from 2.4.19 because the xfs patch is no longer available thanks to SCO. Nicos Gollan wrote: On Wednesday November 3 2004 23:34, Aaron Thoreson wrote: After an upgrade from 2.4.19 stable to 2.6.9 custom (maybe too ambitious?) I've lost the ability to ssh into the upgraded box. auth.log is reporting error: openpty: No such file or directory error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed The problem is that you don't have the PTS filesystem mounted. This should normally be done by the mountvirtfs init script (package initscripts). Stable doesn't have this script since it was pretty useless back when stable was born, so I guess you'll have to see how it works or try and install it along with its dependencies. The relevant output of mount is: devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620) devfs should theoretically handle the rest (if you have devfsd running). -- Aaron Thoreson Network Group Midcontinent Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
post-2.6 upgrade problems
Hello, I've seen this about, but not been able to find satisfactory resolution. After an upgrade from 2.4.19 stable to 2.6.9 custom (maybe too ambitious?) I've lost the ability to ssh into the upgraded box. auth.log is reporting error: openpty: No such file or directory error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed Now, I know with 2.6, devfs went the way of the dinosaur to be replaced by udev. However, the udev I've got from backports.org conflicts with lvm2, so I can't install it. My 2.6.9 kernel has /devfs support and auto-mount devfs both compiled in. I've seen fixes ranging from lilo changes to kernel patches. Been looking for a few days with only dead ends. Can anyone provide a definitive answer to this for me once and for all? :) Thanks a bunch! -- Aaron Thoreson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: post-2.6 upgrade problems
On Wednesday November 3 2004 23:34, Aaron Thoreson wrote: After an upgrade from 2.4.19 stable to 2.6.9 custom (maybe too ambitious?) I've lost the ability to ssh into the upgraded box. auth.log is reporting error: openpty: No such file or directory error: session_pty_req: session 0 alloc failed The problem is that you don't have the PTS filesystem mounted. This should normally be done by the mountvirtfs init script (package initscripts). Stable doesn't have this script since it was pretty useless back when stable was born, so I guess you'll have to see how it works or try and install it along with its dependencies. The relevant output of mount is: devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620) devfs should theoretically handle the rest (if you have devfsd running). -- Got Backup? Jabber: Shadowdancer at jabber.fsinf.de pgpvpryddwVIZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Apt-get upgrade problems
Hi, I have a strange problem with apt-get. I installed a package manually with dpkg after apt-get ran into a conflict and since then apt-get does not upgrade anything. It gives: Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Calculating Upgrade... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded for upgrade, dist-upgrade and dselect-upgrade as well. I did run apt-get update it seems to get the new package lists but no effect when trying to upgrade. I use the unstable distribution. Could anyone help? I'm pretty much a newbie. Thanks! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Apt-get upgrade problems
Hello '. .'! On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 10:18:30AM +0100, . . wrote: I have a strange problem with apt-get. I installed a package manually with dpkg after apt-get ran into a conflict and since then apt-get does not upgrade anything. It gives: Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Calculating Upgrade... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded for upgrade, dist-upgrade and dselect-upgrade as well. I did run apt-get update it seems to get the new package lists but no effect when trying to upgrade. I use the unstable distribution. Could anyone help? I'm pretty much a newbie. So first of all I think I have to ask this question: Are you sure Unstable (sic!) is good for you? As a newbie, having apparent lack of background? Sometimes it requires a lot of work and knowledge, whereas some problems are easy to fix or circumvent. Regarding your 'problem' I seems like it's just strange coincidence. You heard about the recent break-in into Debian infrastructure? Since then no new packages flow in to Unstable, so you can't upgrade any. And as you didn't specify your 'conflict' I can't say anything about that... Cheers, Flo pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Apt-get upgrade problems
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 10:18:30 +0100, . . wrote: Hi, I have a strange problem with apt-get. I installed a package manually with dpkg after apt-get ran into a conflict and since then apt-get does not upgrade anything. It gives: Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Calculating Upgrade... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded for upgrade, dist-upgrade and dselect-upgrade as well. I did run apt-get update it seems to get the new package lists but no effect when trying to upgrade. I use the unstable distribution. Could anyone help? I'm pretty much a newbie. Thanks! Try starting aptitude. Go to Options - Miscellaneous and make sure Automatic upgrades are selected. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel Upgrade Problems
Nick, When I tried insmod 8139too (the module for the network card), I get a number of unresolved symbol errors. What happens if you 'modprobe 8139too'? That one made me think - the error indicated that it could not find the hardware. Did an lspci and noticed that the kernel had not detected the PCI bus (this is a Shuttle SS40G system, which has 99% of things onboard, like network etc, and only 2 pci slots). I remembered I had a simialiar problem installing Mandrake Cooker on this machine before I opted for Debian, so tried the same trick (added append=pci=bios,biosirq to the lilo.conf) and bingo - it all works :) Thanks Nick (and thanks for coping with my ignorance of Linux - Getting better, slowly ;)). Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel Upgrade Problems
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030826 10:27]: snip linux-2.2 - linux-2.4 When I tried insmod 8139too (the module for the network card), I get a number of unresolved symbol errors. What happens if you 'modprobe 8139too'? Any ideas? Using insmod does nothing to sort out module dependencies. Using modprobe does. Hope I have given enough information! Providing specific error messages is always best. Cheers, Nick. -- Debian testing/unstable Linux twofish 2.6.0-test3-looxt93c1 i686 GNU/Linux pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Kernel Upgrade Problems
Hi all, I am fairly new to Debian, but have used Mandrake and Redhat for a couple of years. I have had a Debian Woody box running for a few months running the stock 2.2.20-idepci kernel, and decided it was time to upgrade. The box is a AMD XP 1800 with 256Mb DDR266 RAM. I ran: apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.18-k7 and waiting. Everything was installed correctly, or so it appeared, so I rebooted. A number of errors appeared, regarding /etc/modules.conf being newer than modules.dep for the kernel. Also, I seemed to have lost the network configuration. When I tried insmod 8139too (the module for the network card), I get a number of unresolved symbol errors. Any ideas? Hope I have given enough information! Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More dist-upgrade problems on stable
On 2 Jun 2003 stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get dist-upgrade Reading Package Lists... 0%Reading Package Lists... 100%Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... 0%Building Dependency Tree... 0%Building Dependency Tree... 50%Building Dependency Tree... 50%Building Dependency Tree... 76%Building Dependency Tree... Done Calculating Upgrade... Failed Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: kde: Depends: kdebase-audiolibs but it is not going to be installed or kdebase3-audiolibs but it is not installable E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by held packages. What can I do to fix this? What I have done when I got messages like this was: trying an install of the packages that were reported to not going to be installed or to be not installable. Not in the expectation that they might nevertheless be installed, but to see what error messages that would generate. Generally, these say something about the cause of the 'uninstallibility'. If that cause was that the uninstallable packages depend on one or more other packages that were uninstallable, I repeated the procedure for those other packages. Up to now, I always pretty soon found some 'root cause' of the problem that could be solved by installing / upgrading / removing packages in the right sequence. But I admit I never had to do this during a dist-upgrade The chain of dependencies you will encounter when trying this method may be very long. Just try if no one offers you a better solution. Regards, Ben -- B.F.M. Kal Anjelierstraat 1, 2014 TC Haarlem, Netherlands tel +31 23 5324909, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More dist-upgrade problems on stable
Just when I thought things were about to get back to working on my testing amchines, I ran into this on one of them: Script started on Mon Jun 2 09:38:12 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get dist-upgrade Reading Package Lists... 0%Reading Package Lists... 100%Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... 0%Building Dependency Tree... 0%Building Dependency Tree... 50%Building Dependency Tree... 50%Building Dependency Tree... 76%Building Dependency Tree... Done Calculating Upgrade... Failed Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: kde: Depends: kdebase-audiolibs but it is not going to be installed or kdebase3-audiolibs but it is not installable E: Error, pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generated breaks, this may be caused by held packages. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# Script done on Mon Jun 2 09:38:29 2003 What can I do to fix this? -- They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More dist-upgrade problems on stable
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 05:51:15PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 09:47:54AM -0400, stan wrote: What can I do to fix this? You can try apt-get -f install or you can get aptitude, hit g, find the package marked in red and purge (hit _) hit, and then hit g to Go finish the job. Let us know what works. Unfortunately, neither. apt-get -f install runs without errro, and looks like this: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# apt-get -f install Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 15 not upgraded. When I enter aptitude, I get and hit g I get an error popup that syas: pkgProblemResolver::Resolve generate breaks, this may be caused by Unable to correct dependemcies Which looks a whole lot like the apt-get error to me. What should I do next? And thnaks for the help on this! -- They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Help Please :: Kernel Upgrade Problems with Booting from Raid HPT370
Hi All I run an ABIT KT7A-Raid Mainboard with two Segate 40gig disks connected and striped with raid0. I have recently installed debian from the 3.0 ISO using the 2.4.18-bf24.4 Kernel. The system works fine, but of course I am not satisfied with the kernel, and I wish to configure and upgrade the kernel to 2.4.20 or (failing that) 2.4.19. I have recently tried to build the new kernel(s) and configured them, and staticly enabled the the hpt370 support option. However when I boot the system in to the new kernel I get the error message below: NET4 Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for linux NET4.0. kmod: failed to exec /sbin/modprobe -s -k block-major-114, errno = 2 VFSS: Cannot open root device 7206 or 72:06 Please append a correct root= boot option Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 72:06 Because the bf24 kernel was there origniall I am presuming that most of the options in lilo.conf and in other places are correct for the new kernel upgrade. e.g. root=/dev/ataraid/d0p6 So what is it that I am missing? Thanks for your help Aaron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[MAILapt-get upgrade problems
Just done my usual apt-get update, apt-get upgrade 2 of my machines have kept back a number of upgrades without explanation. Any ideas why this is or where I can look to find out. Had a hunt through the log files to no effect. The kept back packages are:- abiword afterstep gettext gimp1.2 initrd-tools libwine rpm scrollkeeper wine xpdf Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [MAILapt-get upgrade problems
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 08:30:07PM +0100, steve downes wrote: | Just done my usual apt-get update, apt-get upgrade 2 of my machines | have kept back a number of upgrades without explanation. Any ideas | why this is or where I can look to find out. Had a hunt through the | log files to no effect. | | The kept back packages are:- | | abiword afterstep gettext gimp1.2 initrd-tools libwine rpm | scrollkeeper wine xpdf apt-get -s install abiword afterstep gettext gimp1.2 initrd-tools libwine rpm scrollkeeper wine xpdf will list what would happen if you tried to install those packages. The 'upgrade' action will not : o remove packages o install new packages o install a package marked as 'hold' with dpkg --set-selections -D -- A kindhearted woman gains respect, but ruthless men gain only wealth. Proverbs 11:16 GnuPG key : http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/public_key.gpg pgpHrJ8aj3lO1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [MAILapt-get upgrade problems
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 03:06:55PM -0500, dman wrote: The 'upgrade' action will not : o remove packages o install new packages o install a package marked as 'hold' with dpkg --set-selections ... and, to complete this explanation, the 'dist-upgrade' action may be closer to what the original poster wanted. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
upgrade problems with install-info hangups
Does everyone who upgrades have snags with install-info? I received an email when I posted a similar inquiry some months ago, that someone had never had such a problem. But especially when I am doing an update/upgrade after a long interval, with, say 200MB of files (sid), over several years I have had problems requiring hand editing of prerm and postinst files, to upgrade multiple packages. This can take hours. I usually just comment out or delete lines for install-info. Does this lead to more problems later on? What can I do to eliminate this problem? Can someone lend a clue? Alan Davis -- Alan E. Davis, Science Instructor Marianas High School PMB 30, Box 10006, Saipan, MP 96950 Northern Mariana Islands [EMAIL PROTECTED] An inviscid theory of flow renders the screw useless, but the need for one non-existent. ---Lord Raleigh(aka John William Strutt),or else his son, Jr., who was also a scientist. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apt-get dist-upgrade problems
I'm trying to do apt-get dist-upgrade with the following sources.list: deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian sid main contrib non-free deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US sid/non-US main contrib non-free I get the error: Setting up libc6 (2.2.5-3) ... dpkg: error processing libc6 (--configure): md5sum gave malformatted output `fc857c5ac5fb84d80720ed4d1c624f6e' Errors were encountered while processing: libc6 I've deleted the .deb and downloaded a new copy (multiple times). I have that version installed on my box at work (with the same sources.list), and just now upgraded to it successfully on another box. What do I need to remove/edit/fix to allow me to install this package? Thanks, Jason
Re: potato-woody upgrade problems (mostly fixed)
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:26:12PM -0500, John Dalbec wrote: apt-get dist-upgrade died while configuring gcc-doc with the message perl: libc6: version GLIBC_2.2 not found - needed by libdb.so.3. attempting 'apt-get -f install' failed with the same message. I installed libc6 from /var/cache/apt using dpkg and 'apt-get -f install' worked again. Just to avoid this type of problem, I always install woody version of apt by: # apt-get install apt first, before doing real massive dist-upgrade. It pulls glibc 2.2 and new perl and libdb.so... But no large X programs. I set up my system with a 1G / partition. Apparently this is not sufficient for a successful dist-upgrade. I now have to re-download 300M because I had to do an 'apt-get clean' when I ran out of space. Can /var/cache/apt/archives be a symlink? I think so too. I even saw few previous posting mounting /var/cache/apt/archives from different machine by NFS. Installing konsole failed because it shared its 16x16 icon file with (the old version of) kdebase. A dpkg -i --force-overwrite got it installed (but not configured) and 'apt-get -f install' cleaned up afterwards. testing sometimes has broken dependency which requires packages from unstable. Read man apt_preferences once you install woody version of apt. ... Debconf really really needs a 'back' button, not just dpkg-reconfigure. Which package do I reconfigure to fix my monitor settings? Aha, xserver-svga is it. Hmm, that should have been replaced by xserver-xfree86 in the woody upgrade, no? File a wishlist bug report (may be there already :) -- ~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ + Osamu Aoki [EMAIL PROTECTED], GnuPG-key: 1024D/D5DE453D + + My debian quick-reference, http://qref.sourceforge.net/quick/ +
potato-woody upgrade problems (mostly fixed)
apt-get dist-upgrade died while configuring gcc-doc with the message perl: libc6: version GLIBC_2.2 not found - needed by libdb.so.3. attempting 'apt-get -f install' failed with the same message. I installed libc6 from /var/cache/apt using dpkg and 'apt-get -f install' worked again. I set up my system with a 1G / partition. Apparently this is not sufficient for a successful dist-upgrade. I now have to re-download 300M because I had to do an 'apt-get clean' when I ran out of space. Can /var/cache/apt/archives be a symlink? Installing konsole failed because it shared its 16x16 icon file with (the old version of) kdebase. A dpkg -i --force-overwrite got it installed (but not configured) and 'apt-get -f install' cleaned up afterwards. Installing kdebase failed because it shared the 32x32 kfm icon with (the old version of) konqueror. See above. One of the tetex packages failed to configure because it couldn't find a file 'XDvi'. It took several apt-get installs to clear that up. Also I had broken my lilo configuration by uninstalling the target of the /vmlinuz.old symlink, which kept lilo from configuring until I worked out what the problem was. Debconf really really needs a 'back' button, not just dpkg-reconfigure. Which package do I reconfigure to fix my monitor settings? Aha, xserver-svga is it. Hmm, that should have been replaced by xserver-xfree86 in the woody upgrade, no? Who hit xdm with an ugly stick? John
libc6 upgrade problems
Hi all, In an attempt to get the IPMASQADM package up and running I went and upgraded to libc6 2.2.3-9 (or whatever the trailing numbers are). Well now a heap of stuff has compatibility issues. I tried removing the new libc6 to reinstall the old one .. just to make sure that's what had caused all the problems, but I haven't been able to figure out how. DPKG, APT-GET and DSELECT all refuse to let me delete libc6 because of all the dependencies. So is there an easy way to upgrade the packages that depend on libc6 so that they're compatible with the newer version. I tried apt-get upgrade apt-get -f install both of which did something, but didn't fix my problems. Any help will be much appreciated Cheers Stephen PS The two main applications that seem to have been affected by this mess are APACHE and GNOME/XWINDOWS
Re: libc6 upgrade problems
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:51:56AM -0700, Stephen Handley wrote: In an attempt to get the IPMASQADM package up and running I went and upgraded to libc6 2.2.3-9 (or whatever the trailing numbers are). Well now a heap of stuff has compatibility issues. I tried removing the new libc6 to reinstall the old one .. just to make sure that's what had caused all the problems, but I haven't been able to figure out how. ! dpkg will downgrade, no need to remove and install from scratch (and if you manage to remove libc6 you won't be able to run dpkg to install it again ...). DPKG, APT-GET and DSELECT all refuse to let me delete libc6 because of all the dependencies. So is there an easy way to upgrade the packages that depend on libc6 so that they're compatible with the newer version. In practice, a full upgrade with dselect (or 'apt-get dist-upgrade') is the safest way. Upgrading libc6 from stable to testing/unstable without upgrading the rest of the distribution is unfortunately not really safe, although if you upgrade libdb2 and perl as well you'll probably be OK. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: libc6 upgrade problems
On 15 Aug 2001 10:30:13 -0500, Colin Watson wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:51:56AM -0700, Stephen Handley wrote: In an attempt to get the IPMASQADM package up and running I went and upgraded to libc6 2.2.3-9 (or whatever the trailing numbers are). Well now a heap of stuff has compatibility issues. I tried removing the new libc6 to reinstall the old one .. just to make sure that's what had caused all the problems, but I haven't been able to figure out how. ! dpkg will downgrade, no need to remove and install from scratch (and if you manage to remove libc6 you won't be able to run dpkg to install it again ...). DPKG, APT-GET and DSELECT all refuse to let me delete libc6 because of all the dependencies. So is there an easy way to upgrade the packages that depend on libc6 so that they're compatible with the newer version. In practice, a full upgrade with dselect (or 'apt-get dist-upgrade') is the safest way. Upgrading libc6 from stable to testing/unstable without upgrading the rest of the distribution is unfortunately not really safe, although if you upgrade libdb2 and perl as well you'll probably be OK. I've been always running apt-get with the -u flags and comparing what a dist-upgrade and an upgrade do differently. I've been always upgrading since dist-upgrading wants to remove packages to meet dependencies. My gut feeling is that it will take a few days but then things will return to normal once all the dependencies are taken care of. It's not called unstable for nothing ; --mike
libc6 upgrade problems
Okay, so I've brought this on myself. I was trying to install openafs-client, which seemed to require openafs-krb5, which seemed to require libc6 from testing. So, on my potato 2.2r3 machine, I downloaded libc6_2.2.3-9_i386.deb and did dpkg --install libc6_2.2.3-9_i386.deb. It seemed to work fine, and allowed me to install the other packages. However, now I get: hm269-26876:/usr/src/deb# man man: error while loading shared libraries: libdb.so.3: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory and other assorted similar errors. So, I tried to revert to the distribution's version of libc6, but can't figure out how to do so. I tried: hm269-26876:/usr/src/deb# apt-get install libc6 Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Sorry, libc6 is already the newest version You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these: Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: libc6-dev: Depends: libc6 (= 2.1.3-18) but 2.2.3-9 is to be installed libgtk1.2: Depends: gconv-modules locales: Depends: libc6 (= 2.1.3-18) but 2.2.3-9 is to be installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or specify a solution). hm269-26876:/usr/src/deb# apt-get -f install libc6 Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Sorry, libc6 is already the newest version You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these: Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: libc6-dev: Depends: libc6 (= 2.1.3-18) but 2.2.3-9 is to be installed libgtk1.2: Depends: gconv-modules locales: Depends: libc6 (= 2.1.3-18) but 2.2.3-9 is to be installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try 'apt-get -f install' with no packages (or specify a solution). Any ideas? Thanks. -- Andrew J Perrin - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 269 Hamilton Hall, CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Jürgen A. Erhard wrote: As I said, that's bullshit. You're right that dpkg's available file needs to be up to date... but only for dselect and for manual browsing (do that quite often myself). dpkg itself doesn't use it AFAIK. dpkg does. if you do dpkg -i foo.deb, it will update the entry in available.
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
Adam == Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adam On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Jürgen A. Erhard wrote: As I said, that's bullshit. You're right that dpkg's available file needs to be up to date... but only for dselect and for manual browsing (do that quite often myself). dpkg itself doesn't use it AFAIK. Adam dpkg does. if you do dpkg -i foo.deb, it will update the Adam entry in available. If you say so, I believe it[1]. Though I wonder whatever dpkg does that for... I don't see anything needing updating in the available file. I thought the status file was the place for that... Bye, J [1] For the people on debian-user who don't know it: doogie is one of the brotherhood of dpkg/dselect hackers. So of course I believe one who uses the source. ;-) PS: Reduced the CC list somewhat... should this be kept on debian-user? [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not subscribed to, and [EMAIL PROTECTED] isn't even a regular list. PPS: Heck, this is almost EOT anyway... ;-) -- Jürgen A. Erhard ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) MARS: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard/mars_index.html We must learn from our mistakes, so we can make bigger and better ones. -- Bruce M Krawetz pgpgWRpOvIa64.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 05:58:19PM -0400, John Covici wrote: But this doesn't solve my problem -- why am I getting errors which say no such file or directory -- its looking for a file which isn't there -- but why is it looking? If I look in the relevant directory at ftp.us.debian.org there is no util-linux later than April 15 which I already have -- and yet both the available file and the status file want a newer one. Shouldn't someone put those files there or change the packages.gz files not to want them? Strange, this is cut-n-paste from links: [ ] util-linux_2.11g-4_i386.deb09-Jul-2001 14:30 316k http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/util-linux_2.11g-4_i386.deb Cheers, Joost
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
Received Fri 13 Jul 2001 9:16pm +1000 from Joost Kooij: On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 05:58:19PM -0400, John Covici wrote: But this doesn't solve my problem -- why am I getting errors which say no such file or directory -- its looking for a file which isn't there Sorry not to have any useful insights but I have over the past week or so been noticing exactly the same behaviour on occasion. My apt-get sources.list points to ftp.debian.org (amongst others) unstable. Quite a few times I've apt-get update. I then check to see which packages have been upgraded wrt my installation, then go to install them with apt-get install and the deb files are not there. Checking the actual ftp archive and sure enough they are not there. If I come back some hours later and try the install again, it's okay. Seems like a lag somehow between the available packages list and the actual packages appearing. Regards, Graham
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
--On Friday, July 13, 2001 22:37:02 +1000 Graham Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quite a few times I've apt-get update. I then check to see which packages have been upgraded wrt my installation, then go to install them with apt-get install and the deb files are not there. Checking the actual ftp archive and sure enough they are not there. If I come back some hours later and try the install again, it's okay. Seems like a lag somehow between the available packages list and the actual packages appearing. I can understand a little latency between updating various files on the ftp server, but it's now been broken for 3 days. I've been trying to pull the latest unstable from ftp.us.debian.org using the sequence 'apt-get update', 'apt-get dist-upgrade', and there are 16 packages that come back with 'no such file' from the ftp server. Who do I contact about broken ftp servers? Dave McCracken == Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 [EMAIL PROTECTED] T/L 678-3059
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:20:53PM +0200, J?rgen A. Erhard wrote: Joost == Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joost If you do a dselect-upgrade with apt-get, it will use the Joost dpkg available packages database. Bullshit. (Sorry, but I even did an strace on apt-get dselect-upgrade just now to be sure, and nowhere does it access /var/lib/dpkg/available). It *will* use dselect's package status file for checking which packages should be installed, but it always does this anyway (both apt-get upgrade and apt-get dselect-upgrade open /var/lib/dpkg/status, according to strace). You are completely right and I was talking bullshit. Apologies to the list. PS: I wouldn't have reacted so strongly if a) you didn't walk around here with an aura of I *always* know what I'm saying and b) there hadn't been someone stating that you were one of the most knowledgeable people on this list. Sorry, but those factors just *call* for a cutting down to size once in a while. No need to cut my head off when I've been talking out of my ass. Cheers, Joost
apt-get dselect upgrade problems
I am trying to do apt-get dselect-upgrade and I am getting some missing files and indeed if I ftp to the debian site the files are not there -- but why do the package lists point to files which are not there? I am running woody here and here is the relevant portion of the output. 321 packages upgraded, 18 newly installed, 4 to remove and 13 not upgraded. Need to get 8864kB/169MB of archives. After unpacking 9560kB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Get:1 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 [34.7kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/bsdutils_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:2 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 [97.1kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/mount_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:3 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main textutils 2.0-8 [554kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main textutils 2.0-8 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/t/textutils/textutils_2.0-8_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:4 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main util-linux 2.11g-4 [323kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main util-linux 2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/util-linux_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:5 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main libwrap0 7.6-8.1 [45.2kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main libwrap0 7.6-8.1 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/t/tcp-wrappers/libwrap0_7.6-8.1_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:6 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main tcpd 7.6-8.1 [44.8kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main tcpd 7.6-8.1 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/t/tcp-wrappers/tcpd_7.6-8.1_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:7 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main strace 4.3-3.1 [68.1kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main strace 4.3-3.1 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/s/strace/strace_4.3-3.1_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:8 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main tcsh 6.10-0.2 [220kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main tcsh 6.10-0.2 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/t/tcsh/tcsh_6.10-0.2_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:9 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main librpm0 4.0.2-15 [248kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main librpm0 4.0.2-15 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/r/rpm/librpm0_4.0.2-15_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:10 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main libwrap0-dev 7.6-8.1 [28.9kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main libwrap0-dev 7.6-8.1 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/t/tcp-wrappers/libwrap0-dev_7.6-8.1_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:11 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main rpm 4.0.2-15 [458kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main rpm 4.0.2-15 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/r/rpm/rpm_4.0.2-15_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:12 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main samba 2.2.1-1 [2128kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main samba 2.2.1-1 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/s/samba/samba_2.2.1-1_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:13 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main samba-common 2.2.1-1 [760kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main samba-common 2.2.1-1 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/s/samba/samba-common_2.2.1-1_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:14 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main samba-doc 2.2.1-1 [2084kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main samba-doc 2.2.1-1 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/s/samba/samba-doc_2.2.1-1_all.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:15 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main smbfs 2.2.1-1 [570kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main smbfs 2.2.1-1 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/s/samba/smbfs_2.2.1-1_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:16 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main util-linux-locales 2.11g-4 [532kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main util-linux-locales 2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/util-linux-locales_2.11g-4_all.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:17 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main sendmail-doc 8.11.4+8.12.0.Beta12-2 [668kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main sendmail-doc 8.11.4+8.12.0.Beta12-2 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/s/sendmail/sendmail-doc_8.11.4+8.12.0.Beta12-2_all.deb: No such file or directory. ' Failed to fetch ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/bsdutils_2.11g-4_i386.deb Unable to fetch file, server said
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:12:41AM -0400, John Covici wrote: I am trying to do apt-get dselect-upgrade and I am getting some missing files and indeed if I ftp to the debian site the files are not there -- but why do the package lists point to files which are not there? I am running woody here and here is the relevant portion of the output. 321 packages upgraded, 18 newly installed, 4 to remove and 13 not upgraded. Need to get 8864kB/169MB of archives. After unpacking 9560kB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Get:1 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 [34.7kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/bsdutils_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:2 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 [97.1kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/mount_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' [many more] E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing? Any assistance would be appreciated. Your available packages database is out of date, it seems. Run dselect update select install and see if it helps. Cheers, Joost
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
I just did apt-get update before doing the upgrade -- how could they be out of date? On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Joost Kooij wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:12:41AM -0400, John Covici wrote: I am trying to do apt-get dselect-upgrade and I am getting some missing files and indeed if I ftp to the debian site the files are not there -- but why do the package lists point to files which are not there? I am running woody here and here is the relevant portion of the output. 321 packages upgraded, 18 newly installed, 4 to remove and 13 not upgraded. Need to get 8864kB/169MB of archives. After unpacking 9560kB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Get:1 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 [34.7kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/bsdutils_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:2 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 [97.1kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/mount_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' [many more] E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing? Any assistance would be appreciated. Your available packages database is out of date, it seems. Run dselect update select install and see if it helps. Cheers, Joost -- John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just did apt-get update before doing the upgrade -- how could they be out of date? 'apt-get update' only updates apt's available file, not dpkg's. 'dselect update' updates both. However, if you're using apt, then this shouldn't matter. It may just be that your mirror is out of sync, which is common while mirrors are updating (and hard to avoid if the mirror doesn't have enough disk space to keep both old and new files around). Sometimes errors cause them to be out of sync for longer than that. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:52:46AM -0400, John Covici wrote: I just did apt-get update before doing the upgrade -- how could they be out of date? If you do a dselect-upgrade with apt-get, it will use the dpkg available packages database. Apt normally uses its own available packages database, and does not use the dpkg database. The dpkg available database must also be kept up to date, but there is no apt-get dselect-update for that. I think that apt-get should do this on every regular apt-get update, because it should keep the dpkg available packages list in sync with the user's expectations. You can still do this in dselect or manually, using apt-cache dumpavail | dpkg --update-avail Until apt gets this right on regular updates, you should run update from dselect. It is generally also advisable to manage your package selections in dselect, so you know eg. what you are upgrading in advance. Then, when you run install in dselect, it will do the apt-get dselect-upgrade for you. So if you stay in dselect the whole time, it is even less typing than with apt-get. Cheers, Joost I am trying to do apt-get dselect-upgrade and I am getting some missing files and indeed if I ftp to the debian site the files are not there -- but why do the package lists point to files which are not there? I am running woody here and here is the relevant portion of the output. 321 packages upgraded, 18 newly installed, 4 to remove and 13 not upgraded. Need to get 8864kB/169MB of archives. After unpacking 9560kB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Get:1 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 [34.7kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/bsdutils_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:2 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 [97.1kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/mount_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' [many more] E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing? Any assistance would be appreciated. Your available packages database is out of date, it seems. Run dselect update select install and see if it helps. Cheers, Joost -- John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
I did a dselect update from within dselect but got the same missing packages as before when I did apt-get dselect-upgrade. I have not had any problems doing it this way before, but in the last two days its not working. Looking on the debian site, I cannot find an up to date binary for util-linux, this may be the problem. Also, note the apt-cache dump is much smaller than the available file in /var/lib/dpkg . On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Joost Kooij wrote: On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:52:46AM -0400, John Covici wrote: I just did apt-get update before doing the upgrade -- how could they be out of date? If you do a dselect-upgrade with apt-get, it will use the dpkg available packages database. Apt normally uses its own available packages database, and does not use the dpkg database. The dpkg available database must also be kept up to date, but there is no apt-get dselect-update for that. I think that apt-get should do this on every regular apt-get update, because it should keep the dpkg available packages list in sync with the user's expectations. You can still do this in dselect or manually, using apt-cache dumpavail | dpkg --update-avail Until apt gets this right on regular updates, you should run update from dselect. It is generally also advisable to manage your package selections in dselect, so you know eg. what you are upgrading in advance. Then, when you run install in dselect, it will do the apt-get dselect-upgrade for you. So if you stay in dselect the whole time, it is even less typing than with apt-get. Cheers, Joost I am trying to do apt-get dselect-upgrade and I am getting some missing files and indeed if I ftp to the debian site the files are not there -- but why do the package lists point to files which are not there? I am running woody here and here is the relevant portion of the output. 321 packages upgraded, 18 newly installed, 4 to remove and 13 not upgraded. Need to get 8864kB/169MB of archives. After unpacking 9560kB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Get:1 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 [34.7kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main bsdutils 1:2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/bsdutils_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' Get:2 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 [97.1kB] Err ftp://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main mount 2.11g-4 Unable to fetch file, server said '/debian/pool/main/u/util-linux/mount_2.11g-4_i386.deb: No such file or directory. ' [many more] E: Unable to fetch some archives, maybe run apt-get update or try with --fix-missing? Any assistance would be appreciated. Your available packages database is out of date, it seems. Run dselect update select install and see if it helps. Cheers, Joost -- John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
Joost == Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joost On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:52:46AM -0400, John Covici wrote: I just did apt-get update before doing the upgrade -- how could they be out of date? Joost If you do a dselect-upgrade with apt-get, it will use the Joost dpkg available packages database. Bullshit. (Sorry, but I even did an strace on apt-get dselect-upgrade just now to be sure, and nowhere does it access /var/lib/dpkg/available). It *will* use dselect's package status file for checking which packages should be installed, but it always does this anyway (both apt-get upgrade and apt-get dselect-upgrade open /var/lib/dpkg/status, according to strace). Joost Apt normally uses its own available packages database, and Joost does not use the dpkg database. The dpkg available Joost database must also be kept up to date, but there is no Joost apt-get dselect-update for that. I think that apt-get Joost should do this on every regular apt-get update, because Joost it should keep the dpkg available packages list in sync Joost with the user's expectations. As I said, that's bullshit. You're right that dpkg's available file needs to be up to date... but only for dselect and for manual browsing (do that quite often myself). dpkg itself doesn't use it AFAIK. You do the updating via dselect update, but I should think that you known that. Bye, J PS: I wouldn't have reacted so strongly if a) you didn't walk around here with an aura of I *always* know what I'm saying and b) there hadn't been someone stating that you were one of the most knowledgeable people on this list. Sorry, but those factors just *call* for a cutting down to size once in a while. -- Jürgen A. Erhard ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) My WebHome: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard Linux - Free PC Unix (http://www.linux.org) It's not apathy: It's zen! -- Joe Mayer pgpUQQfq32rG7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
Breathe, man, breathe... On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:20:53 Jürgen A. Erhard wrote: Joost == Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joost On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:52:46AM -0400, John Covici wrote: I just did apt-get update before doing the upgrade -- how could they be out of date? Joost If you do a dselect-upgrade with apt-get, it will use the Joost dpkg available packages database. Bullshit. (Sorry, but I even did an strace on apt-get dselect-upgrade just now to be sure, and nowhere does it access /var/lib/dpkg/available). It *will* use dselect's package status file for checking which packages should be installed, but it always does this anyway (both apt-get upgrade and apt-get dselect-upgrade open /var/lib/dpkg/status, according to strace). Joost Apt normally uses its own available packages database, and Joost does not use the dpkg database. The dpkg available Joost database must also be kept up to date, but there is no Joost apt-get dselect-update for that. I think that apt-get Joost should do this on every regular apt-get update, because Joost it should keep the dpkg available packages list in sync Joost with the user's expectations. As I said, that's bullshit. You're right that dpkg's available file needs to be up to date... but only for dselect and for manual browsing (do that quite often myself). dpkg itself doesn't use it AFAIK. You do the updating via dselect update, but I should think that you known that. Bye, J PS: I wouldn't have reacted so strongly if a) you didn't walk around here with an aura of I *always* know what I'm saying and b) there hadn't been someone stating that you were one of the most knowledgeable people on this list. Sorry, but those factors just *call* for a cutting down to size once in a while. -- Jürgen A. Erhard ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) My WebHome: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard Linux - Free PC Unix (http://www.linux.org) It's not apathy: It's zen! -- Joe Mayer
Re: apt-get dselect upgrade problems
But this doesn't solve my problem -- why am I getting errors which say no such file or directory -- its looking for a file which isn't there -- but why is it looking? If I look in the relevant directory at ftp.us.debian.org there is no util-linux later than April 15 which I already have -- and yet both the available file and the status file want a newer one. Shouldn't someone put those files there or change the packages.gz files not to want them? On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, aidanc wrote: Breathe, man, breathe... On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:20:53 Jürgen A. Erhard wrote: Joost == Joost Kooij [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joost On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:52:46AM -0400, John Covici wrote: I just did apt-get update before doing the upgrade -- how could they be out of date? Joost If you do a dselect-upgrade with apt-get, it will use the Joost dpkg available packages database. Bullshit. (Sorry, but I even did an strace on apt-get dselect-upgrade just now to be sure, and nowhere does it access /var/lib/dpkg/available). It *will* use dselect's package status file for checking which packages should be installed, but it always does this anyway (both apt-get upgrade and apt-get dselect-upgrade open /var/lib/dpkg/status, according to strace). Joost Apt normally uses its own available packages database, and Joost does not use the dpkg database. The dpkg available Joost database must also be kept up to date, but there is no Joost apt-get dselect-update for that. I think that apt-get Joost should do this on every regular apt-get update, because Joost it should keep the dpkg available packages list in sync Joost with the user's expectations. As I said, that's bullshit. You're right that dpkg's available file needs to be up to date... but only for dselect and for manual browsing (do that quite often myself). dpkg itself doesn't use it AFAIK. You do the updating via dselect update, but I should think that you known that. Bye, J PS: I wouldn't have reacted so strongly if a) you didn't walk around here with an aura of I *always* know what I'm saying and b) there hadn't been someone stating that you were one of the most knowledgeable people on this list. Sorry, but those factors just *call* for a cutting down to size once in a while. -- Jürgen A. Erhard ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) My WebHome: http://members.tripod.com/Juergen_Erhard Linux - Free PC Unix (http://www.linux.org) It's not apathy: It's zen! -- Joe Mayer -- John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED]
upgrade problems
Hi there, I've tried to upgrade my 2.2r0 to r3. This is the output I've got: debconf: failed to initialize frontend: Slang debconf: (Unable to load Term::Stool -- is libterm-stool-perl installed?) (Reading database ... 53957 files and directories currently installed.) Removing slapd ... dpkg - warning: while removing slapd, directory `/etc/ldap/schema' not empty so not removed. /var/lib/dpkg/info/slapd.postrm: /etc/init.d/slapd: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden dpkg: error processing slapd (--remove): subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 1 Removing gpg-rsa ... Errors were encountered while processing: slapd E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) So there seems to be libterm-stool-perl missing, thats why I tried to install it: voyager:/home/frank# apt-get install libterm-stool-perl Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Package libterm-stool-perl has no available version, but exists in the database. This typically means that the package was mentioned in a dependency and never uploaded, has been obsoleted or is not available with the contents of sources.list E: Package libterm-stool-perl has no installation candidate but it seems not to be on the CDs. What is it doing and where can I get it. 2. How can I solve the problem with the slapd? Thanx for every advise, Frank
gnome upgrade problems
I`m needing some help. Something got wrong when I was updating Gnome. There was an error message and gnome-games didn`t configure. Now I can`t configure it by apt-get and I can`t remove it either. I can`t even start X with gnome-session on my .xinitrc. When I try it this message is thrown by apt-get: /***/ gnome-session: error in loading shared libraries: libgnomecanvaspixbuf.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory waiting for X server to shut down /***/ When I try apt-get remove --purge gnome-games the message: /***/ /var/lib/dpkg/info/gnome-games.postrm: scrollkeeper-update: command not found dpkg: error processing gnome-games (--purge): subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127 Errors were encountered while processing: gnome-games E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) /***/ is thrown. Is there someone can help me? Thanks, Rafael Sasaki
Upgrade problems to 2.2
Hi from Genti, I'm currently using Debian 2.1 with Kernel 2.0.38 As stated on the Release notes on upgrade procedure to newly 2.2 Release I did a full upgrade from the internet. Everything went fine with downloading new packages and at the moment of the upgrade at a certain level at the beginig everything went wrong after the upgrade of the new libc6 libraries, every program after that tells me that exist undeclared statements on the libc6 shared libraries, I could not even execute ls. I think that something is wrong with the new libraries which are not compatible with the existing packages installed on the 2.1 Debian. It's a loop which will not allow me to upgrade my Debian. Does any one has any idea about this problem?? It seems that I won't be able to upgrade to 2.2 Any help in resolving this upgrade problem will be appreciated. Hope to hear from anyone Rgds GEnti
upgrade-problems with mount
Hello! The last time I made apt-get upgrade, it tried to update the package mount to version 2.10s-2, but the following error occured: dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archive/mount_2.10s-2.deb (--unpack): unable to make backup link of '/bin/mount' before installing new version: [Operation not permitted] (Things in [] are translated by me because I localized my system to german.) After that I tried to upgrade the package manually, but nothing helped. I even tried to 'dpkg --purge mount' despite of the dependancies, but it couldn't remove mount/umount, too. After that I checked permissions, but they seem to be OK: -rwsr-xr-x1 root root25116 Nov 22 20:14 umount -rwsr-xr-x1 root root56284 Nov 22 20:14 mount So what have I missed? Any hints, manpages or this only a bug and will be fixed soon? Thanks in advance! Stephen Rueger
SOLVED!: Upgrade Problems (Stable-Testing)
Here's how I ironed out the problems in my system after upgrading from Potato to Woody: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [250201 21:56]: I was pretty sure everything other than my GUI and Sound was working properly based on watching the screen messages during boot and perusing dmesg. The only problem I really seemed to be having was logging into my Gnome desktop and getting sound working (error messages during boot told me this was not working) Regarding Sound: I have an Soundblaster AWE64 that was running fine prior to the upgrade. Now, for some reason, there are errors occurring when the sound modules are loaded. Loading during boot fails and when I attempt to load the modules manually I get unresolved symbol errors. Do I need to recompile my kernel? It appeared to me that the way modules were handled changed somewhat between Potato and Woody (I did not remember there being as many items in /etc/modutils/ as there appear to be now). Any suggestions? What additional information do you need to help with troubleshooting? A recompile using the 2.4.1 kernel solved this problem. Had to fiddle a bit with which modules to install, but otherwise I did not have much trouble with this one -- the unresolved symbol errors were the clue. Oh..and modutils did change significantly. If you are running the newer kernel (2.4.1), you need the modutils package with the matching version number (modutils 2.4.1). I scrubbed menuconfig pretty closely and completely redid my kernel. A few nice things were better support for the SB AWE 32/64 and 3dfx Video Cards ( both of which I needed!). Turns out that you pretty much have to recompile the 2.4.1 kernel to support a 3dfx Voodoo3 3000 card. Compiling in the necessary 3dfx video support is what creates the tdfx driver you'll use with the XFree86 server (/usr/bin/X11/XFree86). Regarding X or Gnome: I can get to the Gnome login screen and everything looks fine at that point. When I type in my user name and password, the screen flicks off and when it comes back into view I'm still at the Gnome login screen. In case it is relevant, my preferred Window Manger is Enlightenment. Suggestions? I'm not well-versed in X so I'll need you to tell me what files I should look for and provide to the forum and I will. Does this sound like it is an X problem or a Gnome/Enlightenment problem? After recompiling the kernel, fixing the sound problem and creating the tdfx driver, I still could not login to my Gnome Desktop so... I pretty much reinstalled X, a bit at a time, to get this situation resolved. I started by following the HOWTO article at http://www.debianplanet.org on how to configure X4 to run with 3dfx cards. My goal was not to do it piecemeal (I was NOT trying to troubleshoot); it just ended up that way. For what its worth, X4 seems to run faster than its predecessor! The gist of it was this: kill x by ctrl-alt-backspace or whatever your preferred method is. I got stuck in a loop with gdm bringing me back to the login screen so I had to do a kill gdm #dpkg --purge xserver-svga #apt-get update #apt-get install task-x-window-system libglide3* The apt-get will remove gdm and install xdm in its place. I figured this was okay. However, startx caused problems so I reinstalled gdm #apt-get install gdm and was able to get back to the gdm login screen. Throughout this entire adventure I noticed that approximately 6 packages were on hold and never upgraded: task-x-window-system-core and a number of xfonts. I'm guessing that having the task-x-window-system-core files on hold is what was screwing things up (though I never remember placing them on hold). After issuing an apt-get install on the core files and various fonts, I deleted /etc/X11/XF86Config-4 (leftover from previous attempts) and created a new file with xf86config. I then shutdown and restarted gdm and managed to login to my desktop! Hoo-rah. task-x-window-system should have been the complete X environment. Something was goofed on my system...hopefully its not on yours. Hope this helps someone else, rob DISCLAIMER: I spent the better part of a day fiddling with my system to get it all working again. I have to admit that much of what I was doing was poking and prodding at X. I may have missed some of the details of what I did so please do not take this account of my activities as gospel truth. Hopefully it will give you ideas of your own to use in solving your problem.
Upgrade Problems (Stable-Testing)
Good evening everyone, This is my first experience with upgrading from one version to another. I love the debian apt-get tool; for routine upgrades and keeping my system in top order with security updates it has been the greatest help. The upgrade from stable to testing has not been fun so far. Here's the low-down: I upgraded my Potato 2.2r2 system, running a custom compiled 2.2.17 kernel, to Woody via apt-get dist-upgrade today and I've been frustrated ever since; seems that in the process of upgrading I broke or otherwise mangled both my X|Gnome and sound configurations (everything else APPEARS to be working based on Startup and Kill messages when changing between runlevels i.e. I can still get out to the Internet via lynx and my mail still flows! :] ). Regarding X or Gnome: I can get to the Gnome login screen and everything looks fine at that point. When I type in my user name and password, the screen flicks off and when it comes back into view I'm still at the Gnome login screen. In case it is relevant, my preferred Window Manger is Enlightenment. Suggestions? I'm not well-versed in X so I'll need you to tell me what files I should look for and provide to the forum and I will. Does this sound like it is an X problem or a Gnome/Enlightenment problem? Regarding Sound: I have an Soundblaster AWE64 that was running fine prior to the upgrade. Now, for some reason, there are errors occurring when the sound modules are loaded. Loading during boot fails and when I attempt to load the modules manually I get unresolved symbol errors. Do I need to recompile my kernel? It appeared to me that the way modules were handled changed somewhat between Potato and Woody (I did not remember there being as many items in /etc/modutils/ as there appear to be now). Any suggestions? What additional information do you need to help with troubleshooting? Help is greatly appreciated, rob
upgrade problems with xfree and xserver-common 4.0
I tried to upgrade useing apt-get upgrade Sources.list = deb ftp://debian.site.org unstable /yada /yada /yada ( Please note the unstable part. ) And it upgraded my Xfree and xserver-common to 4.0 somthin. even tho my xserver-svga package was still 3.0 somthin. needless to say... # startx cannot stat /etc/X11/X file not found. ( Aborting ) ( somthing to that efect. I can't really say cause im wring this from a dam win98 machine ) # xinit cannot stat /etc/X11/X file not found. ( Aborting ) " ok. " # /usr/X11R6/bin/X cannot stat /etc/X11/X file not found. ( Aborting ) " ARG !!! " linked file from " /etc/X11/X" to "/etc/X11/X " # /usr/x11R6/bin/X Wating for connection from server ... ... ... ... ^C # startx Wating for connection from server ... ... ... ^C #apt-get removexserver-common Error: directory not empty Error: directory not empty Error: directory not empty etc " you get the idea. " reinstalled Xfree, Xserver-common 3.0 "poatao11" I think. reinstalled X86Setup cause the apt-get remove xserver-common removed this as well. ran X86Setup... Nothing. server crash. " ARG [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@#@@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@# " heheh Anyone+ idea = HELP ( If i resintall debian i still wan't to upgrade so i can use the new libc6 and updates gnome stuff. other wize i cannot run some newer progame inned to run . BUT I DON'T WAN:T TO GO THRU THIS AGAIN ! )
Re: New woody upgrade problems
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 11:42:25PM -0500, Casey Henderson wrote: Anybody got any ideas on how to sort this out? I've run into that several times myself doing daily dist-upgrades on my work laptop. (Yes, unstable is bad on a production machine, but I need X4 for the LCD screen, and the potato X4 packages weren't available at the time.) When apt dies like that, I copy and paste the file it was complaining about into a command line like the following: $ sudo dpkg -i --force-overwrite /var/cache/apt/archives/xlibs_4.0.1-12_i386.deb Then run apt-get -f install, and continue with the apt-get dist-upgrade. It's worked well so far for me. :) -- Bill Jonas| If you haven't gotten where you're going, [EMAIL PROTECTED]| you aren't there yet. --George Carlin http://www.billjonas.com/ | http://www.harrybrowne.org/
Re: New woody upgrade problems
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 23:42:25 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Casey Henderson) wrote: Here's a problem related to your problem. I got the same error when trying to install xlibs. Earlier, I had received a warning about the app-defaults thing. I moved the files in /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults to /etc/app-defaults, and made a symlink from /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults to /etc/app-defaults (because I thought this was what I was supposed to do). I have done this too. I get the error message only with xlibs and I get over it by using 'dpkg -i --force-overwrite xlibs-blah-blah'. Dpkg complains that xlibs has unresolved dependencies, but I then repeat the 'apt-get dist-upgrade' and apt carries on configuring packages. In that process it will configure xlibs correctly. Apt-get is annoying when it decides to simply stop processing any more packages it has downloaded. There have been times when I haven't realised what it has done (or not done) and I have had a half-upgraded system as a result. Now I tend to run 'apt-get dist-upgrade' more than once to assure myself that it has indeed completed the process. You can use dpkg to configure pending packages too. -- Phillip Deackes Using Storm Linux 2000
New woody upgrade problems
Hey there Debianites, Like a junkie unable to resist the fix, I did an apt-get upgrade today. Now I have problems getting the upgrade to complete. During the upgrade, I got this error: Preparing to replace xlibs 4.0.1-10 (using .../xlibs_4.0.1-12_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement xlibs ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/xlibs_4.0.1-12_i386.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/app-defaults', which is also in package xmcd dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe) Now when I run apt-get upgrade to try to finish things off, I get: You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these. Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: libxaw7: Depends: xlibs (= 4.0.1-11) but 4.0.1-10 is installed xvncviewer: Depends: xlibs (= 4.0.1-11) but 4.0.1-10 is installed I've tried each of these commands to no avail: apt-get -f install apt-get -f install xlibs apt-get -f install libxaw7 xvncviewer apt-get -f remove xmcd All of them give the last error I listed above (or cognates). Any suggestions? (Besides avoid woody or it's called 'unstable' for a reason :-) Cheers, Dan -- -- Dan Griswold [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
