Re: Scenario of a failed upgrade - advice request - followup
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 07:10:06 +1000, Felix Karpfen wrote ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Since posting the above message, I have confirmed that I can (currently) use LILO to boot both my installed Sarge and my backup Sarge. I can therefore make my queries more concrete. They now read: a) I would like to ensure that after the upgrade to Etch, the 2 image entries in /etc/lilo.conf point to the correct images. The unstated assumption in my posting was that there will be _2_ image entries after the upgrade to Etch. If there is only one backwards-compatible kernel image, then my problems with using it to boot Sarge are a non-issue. Felix Karpfen -- Felix Karpfen Public Key 72FDF9DF (DH/DSA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scenario of a failed upgrade - advice request
This posting - sent via gmane - is my second attempt to send this posting. If the first attempt ultimately reached its intended destination, then I apologise for wasting time and bandwidth. The original message read as follows: | I have acquired a DVD set of the official release of Debian 4.0 and | studied the release notes to the best of my abilities. | | And have taken to heart the included advice to make a full copy of my | current clean and fully operational Sarge installation. | | I am left with one query that is best explained by a hypothetical | situation - which, hopefully, will never happen. | | Assume that my upgrade to Etch has managed to get to the end of the | dist-upgrade step without any obvious major hitch. What steps can I | take - before or after running /sbin/lilo to ensure that the bootloader | will recognise not only the newly-installed Etch but also my backup copy | of Sarge. And - most important - will load the Sarge-backup even if an | attempted boot into Etch fails. | | Specifically what entries should be present in my boot directory, my | /etc/lilo.conf file and (possibly) elsewhere before I shut down the | computer and attempt to reboot. Since posting the above message, I have confirmed that I can (currently) use LILO to boot both my installed Sarge and my backup Sarge. I can therefore make my queries more concrete. They now read: a) I would like to ensure that after the upgrade to Etch, the 2 image entries in /etc/lilo.conf point to the correct images. The sample file in man lilo.conf gives the full path (i.e. /boot/IMAGE) to each image in the (sample) boot directory. Is this mandatory once the boot directory contains more than one image? b) will an attempt to boot into the backup Sarge work if only the etch-upgraded version of initrd is present in the upgraded /boot directory? and c) do the symlinks in the O/S's root need editing? I am aware that I will know the answer to these questions after the upgrade. But forewarned is forearmed.. All advice will be gratefully received. Felix Karpfen -- Felix Karpfen Public Key 72FDF9DF (DH/DSA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 12:37:34AM -0400, Graeme Tank wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:59:55AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: Have you tried aptitude? It's like dselect but with a bit more brain. I recall using aptitude briefly as a Debian novice on stable, but found apt-cache (search|show) and apt-get install easier for upgrades within stable. I can easily imagine others preferring aptitude. Later (just recently), I wanted to make the move to testing and found Colin Watson's May 9 post: I much prefer upgrading with dselect. I've spent too much time fixing very subtle problems with 'apt-get dist-upgrade' that really shouldn't have gone wrong (debconf and xbase-clients upgrade problems come to mind) that I don't trust it. I repeat it here, because the upgrade from stable to testing with dselect went smoothly ... kudos to those responsible. After the move to a testing/unstable system, I found dselect easy to use to hold and unhold packages. In this way aptitude would work well, too. Thanks Paul, I'll check it out. (However, because aptitude is a front-end for apt, perhaps it's best to use dselect for dist-upgrades as Colin recommends.) I'd expect aptitude to do a better job than apt-get, because I believe that offering the user a bit more control in the upgrade process than just dist-upgrade's take-it-or-leave-it approach is a good thing. However, I've not tried it so I can't make any recommendations there. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 02:22:22 +0100 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:12:57PM +0100, Richard Kimber wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:29:09 -0400 Graeme Tank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and bug #188900 seems fixed. Thanks. But this morning listbugs still says it's open. There isn't much point in having this facility if it doesn't report the true position. See bug #195897; apt-listbugs 0.0.20 fixes this. Thanks. I seem to have got myself into a mess now. When I do an apt-get -u upgrade, I get Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done You might want to run `apt-get -f install' to correct these. Sorry, but the following packages have unmet dependencies: python-apt: Depends: python ( 2.2) but 2.2.2-6 is installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f. It's not clear to me what the consequences are of doing apt-get -f install python-apt Is this a safe thing to do, or might everything else that depends on the installed version of python be affected? - Richard. -- Richard Kimber http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:29:09AM -0400, Graeme Tank wrote: I find dselect useful in these situations. During package selection, you can hold a given package. If at a later time you want to unhold it, well, choose the unhold option. Have you tried aptitude? It's like dselect but with a bit more brain. - -- .''`. Baloo Ursidae [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+6tX7J5vLSqVpK2kRAkqeAJ0YNHs2LTPsQDjIBr7f8vhdeRLkBQCfb+RI O0cFYWbp7kre9uC06h0i8Do= =bzkt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:29:09 -0400 Graeme Tank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, am I right in assuming that the #188900 bug is such that I should avoid upgrading binutils? I find dselect useful in these situations. During package selection, you can hold a given package. If at a later time you want to unhold it, well, choose the unhold option. I'm using testing: $ dpkg -l binutils ii binutils 2.14.90.0.4-0.1The GNU assembler, linker ... and bug #188900 seems fixed. Thanks. But this morning listbugs still says it's open. There isn't much point in having this facility if it doesn't report the true position. - Richard. -- Richard Kimber http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:12:57PM +0100, Richard Kimber wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:29:09 -0400 Graeme Tank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm using testing: $ dpkg -l binutils ii binutils 2.14.90.0.4-0.1The GNU assembler, linker ... and bug #188900 seems fixed. Thanks. But this morning listbugs still says it's open. There isn't much point in having this facility if it doesn't report the true position. - Richard. Sorry for not being clearer, Richard. The bug is in binutils 2.13.90.0.18-1.6, but was fixed in 2.13.90.0.18-1.7 some 2 months ago. From the changelog in the testing version (2.14.90.0.4-0.1) cited previously: binutils (2.13.90.0.18-1.7) unstable; urgency=high * NMU * Fixed ld segv (replaced yy_current_buffer by YY_CURRENT_BUFFER) (Closes: #188876, 188900, 188912) -- Julien LEMOINE [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon, 14 Apr 2003 04:45:03 +0200 The stable binutils (2.12.90.0.1-4) does not suffer this bug. Graeme -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 01:12:57PM +0100, Richard Kimber wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2003 01:29:09 -0400 Graeme Tank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and bug #188900 seems fixed. Thanks. But this morning listbugs still says it's open. There isn't much point in having this facility if it doesn't report the true position. See bug #195897; apt-listbugs 0.0.20 fixes this. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:59:55AM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: Have you tried aptitude? It's like dselect but with a bit more brain. I recall using aptitude briefly as a Debian novice on stable, but found apt-cache (search|show) and apt-get install easier for upgrades within stable. I can easily imagine others preferring aptitude. Later (just recently), I wanted to make the move to testing and found Colin Watson's May 9 post: I much prefer upgrading with dselect. I've spent too much time fixing very subtle problems with 'apt-get dist-upgrade' that really shouldn't have gone wrong (debconf and xbase-clients upgrade problems come to mind) that I don't trust it. I repeat it here, because the upgrade from stable to testing with dselect went smoothly ... kudos to those responsible. After the move to a testing/unstable system, I found dselect easy to use to hold and unhold packages. In this way aptitude would work well, too. Thanks Paul, I'll check it out. (However, because aptitude is a front-end for apt, perhaps it's best to use dselect for dist-upgrades as Colin recommends.) Lastly, Paul, you mention aptitude has a bit more brain. How so? Does it do a better job resolving dependencies than dselect? Is the usability better? For me, usability in dselect is, well, not as usable as it could be. To pick one example, if the package information spills over to more than one page, you press 'd' (delete in many other apps) to scroll down instead of 'space' (which scrolls down the package listing in the upper window instead of the information in the lower window). Yes, one can understand why 'space' does this, but still, the usability isn't there. Graeme -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:24:50PM +0100, Richard Kimber wrote: I have 50 or so testing packages in line for upgrade. Some of these have grave bugs open. Some have grave bugs I can live with. Some I don't know about. Is there a way of telling apt to upgrade all _except_ a given package? I'm not keen on dealing with packages one by one. Also, am I right in assuming that the #188900 bug is such that I should avoid upgrading binutils? Thanks, -Richard. I find dselect useful in these situations. During package selection, you can hold a given package. If at a later time you want to unhold it, well, choose the unhold option. I'm using testing: $ dpkg -l binutils ii binutils 2.14.90.0.4-0.1The GNU assembler, linker ... and bug #188900 seems fixed. Graeme -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
apt-get upgrade advice
I have 50 or so testing packages in line for upgrade. Some of these have grave bugs open. Some have grave bugs I can live with. Some I don't know about. Is there a way of telling apt to upgrade all _except_ a given package? I'm not keen on dealing with packages one by one. Also, am I right in assuming that the #188900 bug is such that I should avoid upgrading binutils? Thanks, -Richard. -- Richard Kimber http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:50:10 +0200, Richard Kimber wrote: I have 50 or so testing packages in line for upgrade. Some of these have grave bugs open. Some have grave bugs I can live with. Some I don't know about. Is there a way of telling apt to upgrade all _except_ a given package? I'm not keen on dealing with packages one by one. Hi, you can tell dpkg to hold one package. Then the package won't be updated automatically until you change it again. This can also be used if you want to recompile a program, which other packages depend on, yourself. To do so, try this: echo package hold|dpkg --set-selections -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-get upgrade advice
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:04:01 +0200 Wolfgang Fischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:50:10 +0200, Richard Kimber wrote: I have 50 or so testing packages in line for upgrade. Some of these have grave bugs open. Some have grave bugs I can live with. Some I don't know about. Is there a way of telling apt to upgrade all _except_ a given package? I'm not keen on dealing with packages one by one. Hi, you can tell dpkg to hold one package. Then the package won't be updated automatically until you change it again. This can also be used if you want to recompile a program, which other packages depend on, yourself. To do so, try this: echo package hold|dpkg --set-selections Many thanks. Just one other thing, what is the opposite of 'hold'? The man page only indicates two flags 'hold' and 'reinst-required'. I'm not clear how I permanently unhold something. '--force-hold' I assume just overrides the hold for one particular occasion. - Richard. -- Richard Kimber http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrade advice
You don't need woody, potato is fine. The upgrade from the existing archive or CD's is sweet, see Anne's doc's on the upgrade. Works really well... Regards JohnG John Gould - Systems Support Engineer Power Innovations Limited Tel: +44 1234 223002 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] No Windows here, 's very dark! 32865e97b5342e762ab140e00f3da23b - Just 'Debian' On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, [iso-8859-1] Gu?mundur Erlingsson wrote: Hi there, I've put slink on my laptop and it's been sweet so far. I'd like to upgrade it to a newer version, with newer kernel, but I'm not sure which is best. Should I go for frozen or would Woody be safe? The thing is, I'd like to try out Helix Gnome, and have to have Woody installed to be able to do that, but I don't think it would be worth the hazzle if the unstable version of Debian is, well, too unstable. What do y'all think? regards, Gu?mundur -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Upgrade advice
Hi there, I've put slink on my laptop and it's been sweet so far. I'd like to upgrade it to a newer version, with newer kernel, but I'm not sure which is best. Should I go for frozen or would Woody be safe? The thing is, I'd like to try out Helix Gnome, and have to have Woody installed to be able to do that, but I don't think it would be worth the hazzle if the unstable version of Debian is, well, too unstable. What do y'all think? regards, Guðmundur
Re: Upgrade advice
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 11:18:56AM -, Guðmundur Erlingsson wrote: Hi there, I've put slink on my laptop and it's been sweet so far. I'd like to upgrade it to a newer version, with newer kernel, but I'm not sure which is best. Should I go for frozen or would Woody be safe? The thing is, I'd like to try out Helix Gnome, and have to have Woody installed to be able to do that, but I don't think it would be worth the hazzle if the unstable version of Debian is, well, too unstable. What do y'all think? regards, Guðmundur Hi Guðmundur Thank god for cut'n paste, I wouldn't know how to write your name else! Well, I would recommend Potato, and then add: deb http://spidermonkey.helixcode.com/distributions/debian unstable main to /etc/apt/sources.list, and voila, you have Potato with Helix-GNOME. I've used it for a month now, and it's no problem at all! Don't worry about using unstable stuff on Potato, it works allright. Regards Morten -- Morten Liebach [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://home1.stofanet.dk/liebach Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men (Martin Luther King, Jr.)
