Re: Re: Re: apt-get dist-upgrade keeping back some packets

[Gionatan Danti]

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 07:51:15 +0200 Gionatan Danti wrote:

Using libsystemd0 as an example, apt-cache policy shown the installed 
packages
with score 100, and an available update with score 500. Still, the 
update was

not installed until I manually specified the package on the
apt-get dist-upgrade command line.


Ok, I went to the bottom: it was due to phased updates not selecting my 
machine for applying the update. Disabling it via -o 
APT::Get::Always-Include-Phased-Updates=1 force apt-get dist-upgrade to 
update anything.


I hope this can be useful for others.
Thanks.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Re: Re: apt-get dist-upgrade keeping back some packets

[Gionatan Danti]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 19:33:20 -0400 Greg Wooledge wrote:

You've either got a Frankendebian system, or a pin.  Or both.



Review your sources.list and sources.list.d/* and see if you've mixed
different branches, or different operating systems.


Or pick a package from the "kept back" list, and do an "apt-cache 
policy

pkgname" on it.  See whether it's pinned, or has a version that's ahead
of stable, and then try to remember what you did to achieve that state.


It was my thinking as well, but no source.list changes on this system, 
no pinning, no apt-mark. Nothing.


Using libsystemd0 as an example, apt-cache policy shown the installed 
packages with score 100, and an available update with score 500. Still, 
the update was not installed until I manually specified the package on 
the apt-get dist-upgrade command line.


Full disclosure: this specific system is an Ubuntu installation. I wrote 
here because the issue seems with how apt-get identifies protected 
packages, rather than distro-related.


On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 01:48:38 +0100, Peter Hillier-Brook

I've had a similar problem in the recent past with .
I resolved it by running Synaptic, which solved the issue with no 
reported errors.

I'm running pure Bullseye with no manually pinned packages.


Yep, the issue seems confined to apt-get: issuing aptitude full-upgrade 
worked flawlessy.


Regards.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade keeping back some packets

[Peter Hillier-Brook]

On 23/09/2022 00:33, Greg Wooledge wrote:

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 01:04:26AM +0200, Gionatan Danti wrote:

root@localhost:/var/log/apt# apt-get dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
   grub-efi-amd64 grub-efi-amd64-bin grub-efi-amd64-signed libnss-mymachines
libnss-systemd libpam-systemd libpython3-dev libpython3-stdlib libpython3.10
libpython3.10-dev libpython3.10-minimal libpython3.10-stdlib libsystemd0
libudev1
   python3 python3-dev python3-distutils python3-gdbm python3-lib2to3
python3-minimal python3-tk python3.10 python3.10-dev python3.10-minimal
systemd systemd-container systemd-sysv systemd-timesyncd udev
The following packages will be upgraded:
   bind9-dnsutils bind9-host bind9-libs libpcre2-8-0 python3-oauthlib


You've either got a Frankendebian system, or a pin.  Or both.

Review your sources.list and sources.list.d/* and see if you've mixed
different branches, or different operating systems.

Or pick a package from the "kept back" list, and do an "apt-cache policy
pkgname" on it.  See whether it's pinned, or has a version that's ahead
of stable, and then try to remember what you did to achieve that state.


I've had a similar problem in the recent past with . I 
resolved it by running Synaptic, which solved the issue with no reported 
errors.


I'm running pure Bullseye with no manually pinned packages.

Peter HB

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade keeping back some packets

[Greg Wooledge]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 01:04:26AM +0200, Gionatan Danti wrote:
> root@localhost:/var/log/apt# apt-get dist-upgrade
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Reading state information... Done
> Calculating upgrade... Done
> The following packages have been kept back:
>   grub-efi-amd64 grub-efi-amd64-bin grub-efi-amd64-signed libnss-mymachines
> libnss-systemd libpam-systemd libpython3-dev libpython3-stdlib libpython3.10
> libpython3.10-dev libpython3.10-minimal libpython3.10-stdlib libsystemd0
> libudev1
>   python3 python3-dev python3-distutils python3-gdbm python3-lib2to3
> python3-minimal python3-tk python3.10 python3.10-dev python3.10-minimal
> systemd systemd-container systemd-sysv systemd-timesyncd udev
> The following packages will be upgraded:
>   bind9-dnsutils bind9-host bind9-libs libpcre2-8-0 python3-oauthlib

You've either got a Frankendebian system, or a pin.  Or both.

Review your sources.list and sources.list.d/* and see if you've mixed
different branches, or different operating systems.

Or pick a package from the "kept back" list, and do an "apt-cache policy
pkgname" on it.  See whether it's pinned, or has a version that's ahead
of stable, and then try to remember what you did to achieve that state.

apt-get dist-upgrade keeping back some packets

[Gionatan Danti]

Hi all,
I have a question about apt-get dist-upgrade refusing to update some 
packages:


root@localhost:/var/log/apt# apt-get dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  grub-efi-amd64 grub-efi-amd64-bin grub-efi-amd64-signed 
libnss-mymachines libnss-systemd libpam-systemd libpython3-dev 
libpython3-stdlib libpython3.10 libpython3.10-dev libpython3.10-minimal 
libpython3.10-stdlib libsystemd0 libudev1
  python3 python3-dev python3-distutils python3-gdbm python3-lib2to3 
python3-minimal python3-tk python3.10 python3.10-dev python3.10-minimal 
systemd systemd-container systemd-sysv systemd-timesyncd udev

The following packages will be upgraded:
  bind9-dnsutils bind9-host bind9-libs libpcre2-8-0 python3-oauthlib
5 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 29 not upgraded.
5 standard security updates
Need to get 1,719 kB of archives.
After this operation, 3,072 B of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] n
Abort.

To update, I had to specify all the packages on the command line after 
the dist-upgrade command (or use aptitude full-upgrade). Enabling debug 
via resulted in something similar to that:


root@localhost:/etc/apt# apt-get -oDebug::pkgProblemResolver=1 
-oDebug::BuildDep=1 -oDebug::pkgDepCache::AutoInstall=1 
-oDebug::pkgDepCache::Marker=1 -oDebug::pkgOrderList=1 
-oDebug::pkgProblemResolver::ShowScores=1 -oDebug::pkgDpkgPm=1 
-opkgDPkgPm::Item=1 dist-upgrade 2>&1 | less

Calculating upgrade...Starting pkgProblemResolver with broken count: 0
Settings used to calculate pkgProblemResolver::Scores::
  Required => 3
  Important => 2
  Standard => 1
  Optional => -1
  Extra => -2
  Essentials => 100
  InstalledAndNotObsolete => 1
  Pre-Depends => 1
  Depends => 1
  Recommends => 1
  Suggests => 0
  Conflicts => -1
  Breaks => -1
  Replaces => 0
  Obsoletes => 0
  Enhances => 0
  AddProtected => 1
  AddEssential => 5000
Show Scores
10539 libsystemd0:amd64 < 249.11-0ubuntu3.6 @ii pmK >
10419 python3:amd64 < 3.10.6-1~22.04 @ii pmK >
10320 libudev1:amd64 < 249.11-0ubuntu3.6 @ii pmK >
10206 python3-minimal:amd64 < 3.10.6-1~22.04 @ii pmK >
10206 libpython3-stdlib:amd64 < 3.10.6-1~22.04 @ii pmK >
10150 systemd-sysv:amd64 < 249.11-0ubuntu3.6 @ii pmK >
...

It seems to me that some package is marked as Protected. However, 
running dpkg on one of these packages show no 
protected/essential/important flag:


root@localhost:/var/cache# dpkg-query -Wf 'package:${Package} 
arch:${Architecture} bugs:${Bugs} ess:${Essential} pri:${Priority} 
pro:${Protected} imp:${Important}\n' libsystemd0

package:libsystemd0 arch:amd64 bugs: ess:no pri:optional pro:no imp:

So, why apt-get dist-upgrade refuses to upgrade? How it collect the list 
of protected packages?

Thanks.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.da...@assyoma.it - i...@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

Re: Locally modified config file prompts in apt-get dist-upgrade despite APT configuration in place

[Jaikumar Sharma]

On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 12:45 +0530, Jaikumar Sharma wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to upgrade my Debian 10 box (10.11) with latest security
> fixes on using command line as per below:
> 
> $ sudo apt-get -o Dpkg::Options::="--force-confdef" -o
> Dpkg::Options::="--force-confold" dist-upgrade -y --allow-
> unauthenticated
> 
> above command line with APT configuration is supposed to keep the old
> configuration files in place (without prompting) as per [1] but it is
> prompting me about locally modified /etc/samba/smb.conf (which is
> custom configuration in place)
> 
> [1] 
> https://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/09/21/debian-conffile-configuration-file-managed-by-dpkg/
> 
> ...
> A new version (/run/samba/upgrades/smb.conf) of configuration file
> /etc/samba/smb.conf is available, but the version installed currently
> has been locally modified.
> What do you want to do about modified config file smb.conf? 
> ..
> 
> Does somebody know where is the glitch or i'm doing something wrong or
> missing something obvious?
> 
> 
Please ignore this mail thread as this seems to be a bug 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=316049 - will use
dpkg-divert itself! Sorry.

--
Jaikumar



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Locally modified config file prompts in apt-get dist-upgrade despite APT configuration in place

[Jaikumar Sharma]

Hi,

I'm trying to upgrade my Debian 10 box (10.11) with latest security
fixes on using command line as per below:

$ sudo apt-get -o Dpkg::Options::="--force-confdef" -o
Dpkg::Options::="--force-confold" dist-upgrade -y --allow-
unauthenticated

above command line with APT configuration is supposed to keep the old
configuration files in place (without prompting) as per [1] but it is
prompting me about locally modified /etc/samba/smb.conf (which is
custom configuration in place)

[1] 
https://raphaelhertzog.com/2010/09/21/debian-conffile-configuration-file-managed-by-dpkg/

...
A new version (/run/samba/upgrades/smb.conf) of configuration file
/etc/samba/smb.conf is available, but the version installed currently
has been locally modified.
What do you want to do about modified config file smb.conf? 
..

Does somebody know where is the glitch or i'm doing something wrong or
missing something obvious?


thank you!

Regards,
Jaikumar




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Charlie Gibbs]

On 02/07/18 12:55 AM, Curt wrote:


On 2018-07-01, Charlie Gibbs  wrote:


E: You don't have enough free space in /var/cache/apt/archives/.

apt-get autoclean doesn't help; neither does apt-get clean.  When I
tried apt-get autoremove, the upgrade started, but at 99% completion it
threw the message:

Error writing to output file - write (28: No space left on device)

Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.


https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#sufficient-space


Thank you (and everyone else) for your help.  I tried an apt-get purge 
of a large package I wasn't using, but the upgrade still failed (after 
chugging away for an hour or so).  I have two Linux partitions on my 
laptop - / and /home - and have arrived at the conclusion that 10GB for 
everything but /home is just not enough.  Given the amount of time I've 
spent on this already, I'm way past the point of diminishing returns. 
For now I'll stick to my main machine for everything (my laptop is just 
for when I'm on the road plus I use it for Usenet).  When I find the 
time I'll figure out what in my laptop's root partition needs saving 
(e.g. /var/spool/slrnpull), back it up along with /home, download the 
Stretch install disk image, then delete the partitions and start over 
with a bigger root partition (say 20GB).  Hopefully that'll hold me for 
a few releases.


--
cgi...@surfnaked.ca (Charlie Gibbs)

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[David Wright]

On Mon 02 Jul 2018 at 10:12:13 (+0100), Joe wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:43:02 -0500
> David Wright  wrote:
> > Why? If you find the cause, you can fix it. Upgrades are careful
> > about preserving the system's integrity to run.
> 
> Less and less with each version. 
> 
> I have a wheezy: I cloned it to a spare desktop machine, upgraded with
> some significant difficulty to jessie, tried the next step to stretch
> and abandoned it. I believe there will be less work in a new install,
> which I'm now probably about a week into, with another week to go.
> 
> Back in the days of etch, it was an hour or two. Not any more.

Can you be more specific. The only case I can think of "recently" was
the dist-upgrade from lenny to squeeze where, if you were still
running the original lenny kernel, it was important to make sure that
udev wasn't upgraded before the kernel was upgraded and running.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[songbird]

Charlie Gibbs wrote:

...
> Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.

...

  there are a lot of potential places to get space back:

  - check /var/log

  - also, see if you have old kernels that can be removed.

  - your browser cache may be huge.

  - downloaded files directory may contain stuff you don't need.

  - music or video files you don't want/need any more.

  ...


  songbird

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Joe]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:55:48 + (UTC)
Curt  wrote:

> On 2018-07-02, Joe  wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:43:02 -0500
> > David Wright  wrote:
> >
> >  
> >> 
> >> Why? If you find the cause, you can fix it. Upgrades are careful
> >> about preserving the system's integrity to run.
> >>   
> >
> > Less and less with each version. 
> >
> > I have a wheezy: I cloned it to a spare desktop machine, upgraded
> > with some significant difficulty to jessie, tried the next step to
> > stretch and abandoned it. I believe there will be less work in a
> > new install, which I'm now probably about a week into, with another
> > week to go.
> >
> > Back in the days of etch, it was an hour or two. Not any more.
> >  
> 
> I upgraded from Wheezy to Jessie to Stretch without a problem (except
> I ran out of space, which conveniently circles back on a certain
> raison d'être of this thread, and apt-get cleaned right in the middle
> of it all to free up room, which got me through while at the same
> time nearly condemning me to a special circle of dependency hell).
> 
> Of course I'm talking here about upgrading *in situ*, a proven path,
> not cloning to another machine, whose specificities are unknown to us
> in relation to the cloned machine, and then upgrading from there, for
> reasons only known to yourself. In fact, Joe, I'm declaring an illegal
> goalpost move on you and fining you a blame (remember: three blames
> and you're out--or is that strikes?).

No, I'm not talking about hardware incompatibilities, I mean software
rot. For the most part, a drive moved to another machine will either run
normally or not at all. The copy ran fine on the other machine. It's a
server, so I'm not bothered about super-whizzy peripherals, wifi etc.
As long as there's enough RAM, and enough bits in the processor,
there's not usually much trouble.

But it's loaded (encrusted?) with a lot of server software, some of it
dating from sarge. Sometimes a version upgrade involves a significant
software upgrade, sometimes it doesn't. FreeRADIUS has hardly changed
at all for many years (though it's one that won't even start in
stretch). But as I mentioned to Michelle, PHP5 is no more, so there was
a fair bit of tweaking to old php stuff. Samba has dropped deprecated
configurations, and I have two versions of windows clients, so that was
another afternoon of messing about. 

Systemd. Need I say more? It hasn't been all that difficult, but as I
said, old software, so a certain amount of mucking about with service
files. My iptables scripts were written on Linux From Scratch, then
installed on sarge. No go.

When there's that much work to do, upgrading seems pointless, one might
as well do a clean installation and leave at least some of the cruft
behind. That was my point: even with a lot of server software,
upgrading used to be a matter of half an hour for checking and cleanup,
half an hour of downloading, than maybe an hour of installation. Use
the new config files where needed, then another half-hour for tweaking
them to work like the old ones. Half a day at the most, with the
machine pretty well running normally during most of that time. It's not
like that now.

-- 
Joe

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Curt]

On 2018-07-02, Joe  wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:43:02 -0500
> David Wright  wrote:
>
>
>> 
>> Why? If you find the cause, you can fix it. Upgrades are careful
>> about preserving the system's integrity to run.
>> 
>
> Less and less with each version. 
>
> I have a wheezy: I cloned it to a spare desktop machine, upgraded with
> some significant difficulty to jessie, tried the next step to stretch
> and abandoned it. I believe there will be less work in a new install,
> which I'm now probably about a week into, with another week to go.
>
> Back in the days of etch, it was an hour or two. Not any more.
>

I upgraded from Wheezy to Jessie to Stretch without a problem (except I
ran out of space, which conveniently circles back on a certain raison
d'être of this thread, and apt-get cleaned right in the middle of it all
to free up room, which got me through while at the same time nearly 
condemning me to a special circle of dependency hell).

Of course I'm talking here about upgrading *in situ*, a proven path, not
cloning to another machine, whose specificities are unknown to us
in relation to the cloned machine, and then upgrading from there, for
reasons only known to yourself. In fact, Joe, I'm declaring an illegal
goalpost move on you and fining you a blame (remember: three blames and
you're out--or is that strikes?).

;-)

-- 
“...Two people going to the bottom of a river, one falling and the other
diving.” Jung describing the relationship between Joyce and his schizophrenic
daughter, Lucia.

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Joe]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:43:02 -0500
David Wright  wrote:


> 
> Why? If you find the cause, you can fix it. Upgrades are careful
> about preserving the system's integrity to run.
> 

Less and less with each version. 

I have a wheezy: I cloned it to a spare desktop machine, upgraded with
some significant difficulty to jessie, tried the next step to stretch
and abandoned it. I believe there will be less work in a new install,
which I'm now probably about a week into, with another week to go.

Back in the days of etch, it was an hour or two. Not any more.

-- 
Joe

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Curt]

On 2018-07-01, Charlie Gibbs  wrote:
>
> E: You don't have enough free space in /var/cache/apt/archives/.
>
> apt-get autoclean doesn't help; neither does apt-get clean.  When I 
> tried apt-get autoremove, the upgrade started, but at 99% completion it 
> threw the message:
>
> Error writing to output file - write (28: No space left on device)
>
> Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.
>

https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#sufficient-space


-- 
“...Two people going to the bottom of a river, one falling and the other
diving.” Jung describing the relationship between Joyce and his schizophrenic
daughter, Lucia.

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[David Christensen]

On 07/01/18 13:17, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
I've been banging my head against the wall trying to compile OpenSSL 
clients on my Jessie laptop (see my recent posting titled "Can't link to 
OpenSSL on my laptop).  I've decided to upgrade it to Stretch like my 
desktop machine, which compiles these programs successfully.  However, 
"sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" shows the message:


E: You don't have enough free space in /var/cache/apt/archives/.

apt-get autoclean doesn't help; neither does apt-get clean.  When I 
tried apt-get autoremove, the upgrade started, but at 99% completion it 
threw the message:


Error writing to output file - write (28: No space left on device)

Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.

Is Jessie's default partitioning insufficient for Stretch, or have I 
somehow filled up / with extraneous junk?  Would I be better off backing 
up /home, wiping the disk (e.g. with cfdisk) and starting from scratch? 
  (Probably - I should probably split /var into a separate partition 
anyway.)


After this experience, I'm gun-shy about upgrading a system in place.

BTW is it ok to sudo apt-get, or should I su root and run it from an 
actual root prompt?


I have had a SOHO network with a couple Debian machines for ~15 years. 
My primary goal is reliable operations.



Doing a major version upgrade in place without understanding all the 
issues and risks involved has not work well for me.  And, I estimate the 
learning curve to be non-trivial.  Instead, I pursued the following:


1.  Put my drives in mobile rack drawers, put racks in my computers, 
and/or put trayless racks in my computers.


2.  Take good system administration notes for every machine.

3.  Place notes and all modified configuration files into a version 
control system.


4.  Invest in additional equipment and learning to implement robust 
backup, archive, and image procedures.


5.  Keep at least one spare machine available at all times.


These allow me to install, repair, upgrade, etc., computers within an 
acceptable (and predictable) effort level.



When I want to do a major version upgrade on a computer:

1.  Backup and archive the data and configuration files.  Remove the 
system drive and take an image of it.  Save drive.


2.  Get a fresh system drive.  Wipe and test it using the manufacturer's 
diagnostic utility.  Insert into machine.


3.  Download the latest Debian Stable and burn to media.  Do a fresh 
install.  Update and upgrade.  Install desired software.


4.  Edit configuration files and migrate settings by hand.  Restore data.

5.  Integrate into backup, archive, and imaging processes.


David

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[David Wright]

On Sun 01 Jul 2018 at 19:04:31 (-0400), The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2018-07-01 at 18:43, David Wright wrote:
> 
> > On Sun 01 Jul 2018 at 13:17:47 (-0700), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> > 
> >> I've been banging my head against the wall trying to compile
> >> OpenSSL clients on my Jessie laptop (see my recent posting titled
> >> "Can't link to OpenSSL on my laptop).  I've decided to upgrade it
> >> to Stretch like my desktop machine, which compiles these programs 
> >> successfully.  However, "sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" shows the 
> >> message:
> >> 
> >> E: You don't have enough free space in /var/cache/apt/archives/.
> >> 
> >> apt-get autoclean doesn't help; neither does apt-get clean.  When
> >> I tried apt-get autoremove, the upgrade started, but at 99%
> >> completion it threw the message:
> >> 
> >> Error writing to output file - write (28: No space left on device)
> >> 
> >> Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.
> > 
> > It's worth knowing where the problem lies. I would type
> > 
> > du -sh /[a-ln-z]*/ 2>/dev/null
> > 
> > (I dodge m because /media has loads mounted under it; null avoids
> > permissions clutter if you do this as a user.)
> 
> Is there a reason you don't add '-x' to that, to skip recursing into
> other filesystems? (Which would also avoid the need to omit /media.)

Habit. Slap my wrist, but I mount partitions on the internal disk
onto mountpoints in / (rather than /media), and I'm usually interested
in their usage as much as the rest. Also on my slowest two machines,
I would omit /usr (even though it's not hived off: but I can't do
anything about its size) as it takes too long to traverse it.

Yes, for this use case, a more considered commandline might be

du -hxd 1 /var 2>/dev/null

(And it's habitual for me to do it as a user, but the OP probably
wants accuracy and should run it as root.) BTW I don't think -x
works if you're selecting directories by globbing as I do.

> >> Is Jessie's default partitioning insufficient for Stretch, or have
> >> I somehow filled up / with extraneous junk?  Would I be better off 
> >> backing up /home, wiping the disk (e.g. with cfdisk) and starting 
> >> from scratch?  (Probably - I should probably split /var into a 
> >> separate partition anyway.)
> > 
> > A separate /home is more useful as it allows a fresh installation of
> > the / partition that doesn't touch it.
> 
> I generally do one partition each for /, /boot, /tmp, /home, and /var -
> and formerly also /usr, but I understand that that's not supported
> anymore. I sometimes also do one for /opt, depending on what I expect to
> do with the system.

I need to justify each one to myself before I'll add to the admin
burden by making unnecessary splits¹. In turn:

/home is a no-brainer. All my machines have two Debian systems sharing
their home partition. Usually the two systems are different codenames.
/boot is "essential" if you encrypt the system. I have only ever
encrypted /home (beyond a trial), so I've no need.
/tmp In the years when I had long uptimes (~400d was my maximum), 
this was of more importance. If / fills interactively, I know almost
straight away (I get a false overheat alarm) so I just clean it up.
/var Similar. The proportion of / taken up by logs is trivial now
compared with running DOS and linux on a 2GB disk. But it makes
good sense for a long-running server, as with /tmp. I shut down
all my machines at bedtime. Currently my server might be running
in a room at 90-100°F (we had 106°F outside last Thursday).

> I've only filled up / once, on one system, so far as I recall - and it
> was in fact due to /var/cache/apt/archives.

The first time I login to a machine after rebooting, my startup files
print a massaged   df ; df -i   and nag me if I haven't checked the
disk for over three weeks. As for /var/cache/apt/archives, I push
that problem onto my server by running apt-cacher-ng. On one or
two occasions, I ran into problems there because the version running
was too old for new-fangled files from apt-get update (which screws
its expiration run). This made /var/cache/apt-cacher-ng/ grow and
grow (slowly). Currently it's at 13GB.

¹ I know, others might use LVM.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[The Wanderer]

On 2018-07-01 at 18:43, David Wright wrote:

> On Sun 01 Jul 2018 at 13:17:47 (-0700), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> I've been banging my head against the wall trying to compile
>> OpenSSL clients on my Jessie laptop (see my recent posting titled
>> "Can't link to OpenSSL on my laptop).  I've decided to upgrade it
>> to Stretch like my desktop machine, which compiles these programs 
>> successfully.  However, "sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" shows the 
>> message:
>> 
>> E: You don't have enough free space in /var/cache/apt/archives/.
>> 
>> apt-get autoclean doesn't help; neither does apt-get clean.  When
>> I tried apt-get autoremove, the upgrade started, but at 99%
>> completion it threw the message:
>> 
>> Error writing to output file - write (28: No space left on device)
>> 
>> Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.
> 
> It's worth knowing where the problem lies. I would type
> 
> du -sh /[a-ln-z]*/ 2>/dev/null
> 
> (I dodge m because /media has loads mounted under it; null avoids
> permissions clutter if you do this as a user.)

Is there a reason you don't add '-x' to that, to skip recursing into
other filesystems? (Which would also avoid the need to omit /media.)

>> Is Jessie's default partitioning insufficient for Stretch, or have
>> I somehow filled up / with extraneous junk?  Would I be better off 
>> backing up /home, wiping the disk (e.g. with cfdisk) and starting 
>> from scratch?  (Probably - I should probably split /var into a 
>> separate partition anyway.)
> 
> A separate /home is more useful as it allows a fresh installation of
> the / partition that doesn't touch it.

I generally do one partition each for /, /boot, /tmp, /home, and /var -
and formerly also /usr, but I understand that that's not supported
anymore. I sometimes also do one for /opt, depending on what I expect to
do with the system.

I've only filled up / once, on one system, so far as I recall - and it
was in fact due to /var/cache/apt/archives.

>> After this experience, I'm gun-shy about upgrading a system in
>> place.
> 
> Why? If you find the cause, you can fix it. Upgrades are careful 
> about preserving the system's integrity to run.

Yep. I tend to dist-upgrade (against testing) about once a week, except
when there's just been a release (and testing has come out of freeze),
at which point I do it about once a day or so.

I've rarely had problems, and when I have, it's generally been due to
newly-introduced package bugs - which should all have been ironed out by
the time a stable release is made, so you aren't likely to encounter any
when dist-upgrading from one stable release to another.

Even when a change resulting in (a behavior which you might see as
being) a problem was retained for - or not noticed until after - the
stable release, by the time you're dist-upgrading this late in the
cycle, there will generally be things on the Web documenting the problem
and one or more ways to address it.

(Note that that's only for dist-upgrading against testing or stable! A
dist-upgrade against sid is not something to run on a production
machine, pretty much *ever*.)

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[David Wright]

On Sun 01 Jul 2018 at 13:17:47 (-0700), Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> I've been banging my head against the wall trying to compile OpenSSL
> clients on my Jessie laptop (see my recent posting titled "Can't
> link to OpenSSL on my laptop).  I've decided to upgrade it to
> Stretch like my desktop machine, which compiles these programs
> successfully.  However, "sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" shows the
> message:
> 
> E: You don't have enough free space in /var/cache/apt/archives/.
> 
> apt-get autoclean doesn't help; neither does apt-get clean.  When I
> tried apt-get autoremove, the upgrade started, but at 99% completion
> it threw the message:
> 
> Error writing to output file - write (28: No space left on device)
> 
> Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.

It's worth knowing where the problem lies. I would type

du -sh /[a-ln-z]*/ 2>/dev/null

(I dodge m because /media has loads mounted under it; null
avoids permissions clutter if you do this as a user.)

Then you can refine it depending what you find:

du -sh /var/*/ 2>/dev/null

> Is Jessie's default partitioning insufficient for Stretch, or have I
> somehow filled up / with extraneous junk?  Would I be better off
> backing up /home, wiping the disk (e.g. with cfdisk) and starting
> from scratch?  (Probably - I should probably split /var into a
> separate partition anyway.)

A separate /home is more useful as it allows a fresh installation
of the / partition that doesn't touch it.

> After this experience, I'm gun-shy about upgrading a system in place.

Why? If you find the cause, you can fix it. Upgrades are careful
about preserving the system's integrity to run.

> BTW is it ok to sudo apt-get, or should I su root and run it from an
> actual root prompt?

Cheers,
David.

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Carl Fink]

On 07/01/2018 05:44 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:

Let's look at your options.

2. Buy a nice SSD and a USB-SATA cable. Install stretch on it,
keeping to two partitions: / and /home. Copy over /home from
your internal disk. When it's all done, swap the internal
disk for the SSD.

Pros: clean system
  nice fast SSD
  partitions the size you want them to be
Cons: expensive, relatively slow to do.


If you can afford it, do this. If you have spinning rust in your
system now, definitely do this. It avoids all the dist-upgrade issues
and the performance improvement is an order of magnitude.

--
Carl Fink  c...@finknetwork.com
Thinking and logic and stuff at Reasonably Literate
http://reasonablyliterate.com

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Felix Miata]

Charlie Gibbs composed on 2018-07-01 13:17 (UTC-0700):

> After this experience, I'm gun-shy about upgrading a system in place.

I work mostly with limited space / filesystems, and I do dist-upgrades more
often than fresh installs. There are places other than apt's cache that can
gobble considerable space for no useful purpose.

If you have persistent systemd logging enabled, /var/log/journal/*/ may be
wasting considerable space accumlating antique logs. Logging generally may be
accumulating waste if logrotate isn't enabled.

Sometimes wasteful old icon caches can be found in /usr/tmp/ or /var/cache/.

If your current kernel works, you don't need older versions and initrds
consuming / space.

If /home isn't a separate filesystem, then browser and other caches can be
purged to make freespace, as can emptying DE trash.

Packages you don't actually use can be purged. Even packages you use can be
purged, then reinstalled after the dist-upgrade.

If space is still a problem after thorough cleaning, specific (large) parts of
the existing installation can be upgraded, one package or package group at a
time if necessary, such as libreoffice, firmware packages, Samba, KDE or Gnome,
followed by dist-upgrade for the balance.
-- 
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Dan Ritter]

On Sun, Jul 01, 2018 at 01:17:47PM -0700, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> I've been banging my head against the wall trying to compile OpenSSL clients
> on my Jessie laptop (see my recent posting titled "Can't link to OpenSSL on
> my laptop).  I've decided to upgrade it to Stretch like my desktop machine,
> which compiles these programs successfully.  However, "sudo apt-get
> dist-upgrade" shows the message:
> 
> E: You don't have enough free space in /var/cache/apt/archives/.
> 
> apt-get autoclean doesn't help; neither does apt-get clean.  When I tried
> apt-get autoremove, the upgrade started, but at 99% completion it threw the
> message:
> 
> Error writing to output file - write (28: No space left on device)
> 
> Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.
> 
> Is Jessie's default partitioning insufficient for Stretch, or have I somehow
> filled up / with extraneous junk?  Would I be better off backing up /home,
> wiping the disk (e.g. with cfdisk) and starting from scratch?  (Probably - I
> should probably split /var into a separate partition anyway.)

This is just a classic disk space problem, we can work it out.

Let's look at your options.

1. Grab a USB stick, mkfs.ext4 upon it, and mount it as
   /mnt/tmp.  Copy /var/cache/apt/archives/ to it. Double
   check. rm /var/cache/apt/archives/*. Mount the USB stick 
   as /var/cache/apt/archives. Proceed with the upgrade.
   When done, unmount the USB stick and reboot.

   Pros: this should work and not cause you to do much work.
 Cheap.
   Cons: you might run into disk space problems again.


2. Buy a nice SSD and a USB-SATA cable. Install stretch on it,
   keeping to two partitions: / and /home. Copy over /home from
   your internal disk. When it's all done, swap the internal
   disk for the SSD.

   Pros: clean system
 nice fast SSD
 partitions the size you want them to be
   Cons: expensive, relatively slow to do.

3. Backup /home, wipe this disk and reinstall, then restore
   /home.

Pros: clean system
  cheap
Cons: takes a long time, during which your system is
  completely out of commission. If something goes 
  wrong, you may need to buy a new disk anyway.

> After this experience, I'm gun-shy about upgrading a system in place.

It's just a filesystem-full problem. They're as common as people
not making good backups.

> BTW is it ok to sudo apt-get, or should I su root and run it from an actual
> root prompt?

No difference for this. Differences only come when environment
variables are important.

-dsr-

Is apt-get dist-upgrade worth the hassle?

[Charlie Gibbs]

I've been banging my head against the wall trying to compile OpenSSL 
clients on my Jessie laptop (see my recent posting titled "Can't link to 
OpenSSL on my laptop).  I've decided to upgrade it to Stretch like my 
desktop machine, which compiles these programs successfully.  However, 
"sudo apt-get dist-upgrade" shows the message:


E: You don't have enough free space in /var/cache/apt/archives/.

apt-get autoclean doesn't help; neither does apt-get clean.  When I 
tried apt-get autoremove, the upgrade started, but at 99% completion it 
threw the message:


Error writing to output file - write (28: No space left on device)

Sure enough, / is full, with all the fun that that entails.

Is Jessie's default partitioning insufficient for Stretch, or have I 
somehow filled up / with extraneous junk?  Would I be better off backing 
up /home, wiping the disk (e.g. with cfdisk) and starting from scratch? 
 (Probably - I should probably split /var into a separate partition 
anyway.)


After this experience, I'm gun-shy about upgrading a system in place.

BTW is it ok to sudo apt-get, or should I su root and run it from an 
actual root prompt?


--
cgi...@surfnaked.ca (Charlie Gibbs)

Re: after doing apt-get dist-upgrade I lost wifi internet connection

[Mark Fletcher]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 04:10:20PM -0300, Luciano Moffatt wrote:
> I am in testing.
> 
> I did a new installation and after a single apt-get dist-ugrade, wich
> installed three new packages and updated about another forty,I lost my wifi
> internet connection again.  Cable internet worked fine.
> 
> I suspect it has something to do with firmware-linux-free so I did an
> apt-get remove and I re installed the package firmare-realtek without luck.
> 
> I re-installed the last testing from scratch and I recovered wifi internet.
> 
> I could try to find the guilty package by installing one by one, but I was
> not in the mood of having to reinstall it.
> 
> So, what could I do to report this problem to help it to be solved?
> 

I think it's going to be hard to get anywhere with that without figuring 
out which package was the problem. If you don't know which package to 
report a bug against, you are kind of stuck reporting the problem.

You could list up which packages it wants to upgrade if you do apt-get 
update / apt-get upgrade now but don't let it go through with the 
upgrade, just list out the packages it wants to upgrade and the ones it 
wants to install. Someone on here can probably call out which package is 
the likely culprit.

Mark

after doing apt-get dist-upgrade I lost wifi internet connection

[Luciano Moffatt]

I am in testing.

I did a new installation and after a single apt-get dist-ugrade, wich
installed three new packages and updated about another forty,I lost my wifi
internet connection again.  Cable internet worked fine.

I suspect it has something to do with firmware-linux-free so I did an
apt-get remove and I re installed the package firmare-realtek without luck.

I re-installed the last testing from scratch and I recovered wifi internet.

I could try to find the guilty package by installing one by one, but I was
not in the mood of having to reinstall it.

So, what could I do to report this problem to help it to be solved?

Thanks
Luciano




-- 
Dr Luciano Moffatt
Investigador Adjunto
INQUIMAE-CONICET
FCEN UBA

Re: Debian Testing. Can't boot after apt-get dist-upgrade (28 March 2016)

[Javi Barroso]

Hello,

El 29 de marzo de 2016 9:16:09 CEST, Sergei Petrunin  
escribió:
>Thanks for response!
>
>Unfortunately, I have to report that doing
>
>sudo install-grub /dev/sda#/dev/sda is by device for hard-drive
>with
>lvm, may be I need some specific options here?
>sudo upgrade-grub
>
>do not cure boot for 4.4.0 kernel - same problem persists, still 4.3.0
>kernel (in "Advanced GRUB menu") booting fine.
>So I still assume the problem I's not in grub (config for both kernels
>4.3.0 and 4.4.0 looks the same)
>
>Can you please spot commands for GRUB that you are using (may be some
>specific options other them mine), do you use LVM?
>
>On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Matthew Moore 
>wrote:
>
>> On 2016-03-28 11:46:46 PM, Sergei Petrunin wrote:
>>
>>> During the system boot I get the following message:
>>>
>>> Begin: Running /scripts/local-block ... lvmetad is not active yet
>>> sysinit
>>>  Volume group "strog-vg" not found
>>>  Cannot process volume group strog-vg
>>> done.
>>> --- several times message like this ---
>>> --- and then ---
>>> Give up waiting for root device. Common problems:
>>> - Boot args (cat /proc/cmdline)
>>>  - Check rootdelay=
>>>  - Check root=
>>> - Missing modules
>>> ALERT! /dev/mapper/strog--vg-root does not exist. Dropping to a
>shell

Does vgchange -ay and then control-d start the System?

There was a similar problem on sid months ago

Regards

Re: Debian Testing. Can't boot after apt-get dist-upgrade (28 March 2016)

[Sergei Petrunin]

Thanks for response!

Unfortunately, I have to report that doing

sudo install-grub /dev/sda#/dev/sda is by device for hard-drive with
lvm, may be I need some specific options here?
sudo upgrade-grub

do not cure boot for 4.4.0 kernel - same problem persists, still 4.3.0
kernel (in "Advanced GRUB menu") booting fine.
So I still assume the problem I's not in grub (config for both kernels
4.3.0 and 4.4.0 looks the same)

Can you please spot commands for GRUB that you are using (may be some
specific options other them mine), do you use LVM?

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:32 AM, Matthew Moore  wrote:

> On 2016-03-28 11:46:46 PM, Sergei Petrunin wrote:
>
>> During the system boot I get the following message:
>>
>> Begin: Running /scripts/local-block ... lvmetad is not active yet
>> sysinit
>>  Volume group "strog-vg" not found
>>  Cannot process volume group strog-vg
>> done.
>> --- several times message like this ---
>> --- and then ---
>> Give up waiting for root device. Common problems:
>> - Boot args (cat /proc/cmdline)
>>  - Check rootdelay=
>>  - Check root=
>> - Missing modules
>> ALERT! /dev/mapper/strog--vg-root does not exist. Dropping to a shell
>>
>
> I just finished dealing with something similar. Paradoxically, using the
> secondary boot menu (Advanced Options or similar) in Grub booted fine. I
> ended up doing a install-grub followed by an update-grub once booted and
> it seems to have resolved things.
>
> Hope this helps,
> MM
>

Re: Debian Testing. Can't boot after apt-get dist-upgrade (28 March 2016)

[Matthew Moore]

On 2016-03-28 11:46:46 PM, Sergei Petrunin wrote:

During the system boot I get the following message:

Begin: Running /scripts/local-block ... lvmetad is not active yet
sysinit
 Volume group "strog-vg" not found
 Cannot process volume group strog-vg
done.
--- several times message like this ---
--- and then ---
Give up waiting for root device. Common problems:
- Boot args (cat /proc/cmdline)
 - Check rootdelay=
 - Check root=
- Missing modules
ALERT! /dev/mapper/strog--vg-root does not exist. Dropping to a shell


I just finished dealing with something similar. Paradoxically, using the
secondary boot menu (Advanced Options or similar) in Grub booted fine. I
ended up doing a install-grub followed by an update-grub once booted and
it seems to have resolved things.

Hope this helps,
MM

Debian Testing. Can't boot after apt-get dist-upgrade (28 March 2016)

[Sergei Petrunin]

Hello,

Just execute update commands:

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get upgrade
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

After that I no longer be able to boot on 4.4.0 kernel (I using it for some
time already), so I boot now from 4.3.0.

During the system boot I get the following message:

Begin: Running /scripts/local-block ... lvmetad is not active yet
sysinit
  Volume group "strog-vg" not found
  Cannot process volume group strog-vg
done.
 --- several times message like this ---
 --- and then ---
Give up waiting for root device. Common problems:
 - Boot args (cat /proc/cmdline)
  - Check rootdelay=
  - Check root=
- Missing modules
ALERT! /dev/mapper/strog--vg-root does not exist. Dropping to a shell

I'm using LVM, so I assume that you forget to include LVM support into last
kernel release (or related to kernel)
Here is the list of my recently updated packages related to Linux kernel:

2016-03-20 10:48:14 install linux-headers-4.4.0-1-common:amd64 
4.4.6-1
2016-03-20 10:48:36 install linux-kbuild-4.4:amd64  4.4-4
2016-03-20 10:48:36 install linux-headers-4.4.0-1-amd64:amd64  4.4.6-1
2016-03-20 10:48:39 install linux-image-4.4.0-1-amd64:amd64  4.4.6-1

Thanks.

Re: Suggested apt-get dist-upgrade.........

[Charlie]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:23:00 + Darac Marjal sent:

> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:45:15PM +1100, Charlie wrote:
> 
> >It was suggested that someone [lost the email] upgrade their system 
> >with apt-get dist-upgrade?
> >
> >I suppose depending on what packages are installed on a system would 
> >suggest which of these bugs could be problematical:
> >
> >Summary: libreoffice(2 bugs), akonadi-server(1 bug), libkf5auth5(1 
> >bug), libqt5x11extras5(1 bug), libwebkit2gtk-4.0-37(1 bug)
> >
> >and if it would be a good idea to continue if possible? Because
> >putting them on hold doesn't allow upgrading.  
> 
> apt-listbugs allows you to query the bugs listed in that summary.
> Read the bug reports and see if they apply to you. Sometimes the bugs
> are things like "Fail to build from source [FTBS] on sparc64". This
> IS a bug, but if you're not running the sparc64 architecture, then
> the bug doesn't apply to you and you can go ahead an upgrade.
> 
> Similarly, if you find a bug that does concern you, you can ask 
> apt-listbugs to pin the package, which means that the buggy version
> will be forbidden from your system. apt/aptitude will then A) try to 
> calculate an upgrade which honours that hold (so dependent packages
> will also be held back, but non-dependent packages will be upgraded)
> and B) upgrade to the next-allowed version when it becomes available
> (assuming you don't also pin that one).
> 

Thank you,
Charlie



-- 
Registered Linux User:- 329524
***

Weakness on both sides is, as we know, the motto of all
quarrels. Voltaire

***

Debian GNU/Linux - Magic indeed.

-

Re: Suggested apt-get dist-upgrade.........

[Darac Marjal]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:45:15PM +1100, Charlie wrote:

It was suggested that someone [lost the email] upgrade their system 
with apt-get dist-upgrade?


I suppose depending on what packages are installed on a system would 
suggest which of these bugs could be problematical:


Summary: libreoffice(2 bugs), akonadi-server(1 bug), libkf5auth5(1 
bug), libqt5x11extras5(1 bug), libwebkit2gtk-4.0-37(1 bug)


and if it would be a good idea to continue if possible? Because putting 
them on hold doesn't allow upgrading.


apt-listbugs allows you to query the bugs listed in that summary.  Read 
the bug reports and see if they apply to you. Sometimes the bugs are 
things like "Fail to build from source [FTBS] on sparc64". This IS a 
bug, but if you're not running the sparc64 architecture, then the bug 
doesn't apply to you and you can go ahead an upgrade.


Similarly, if you find a bug that does concern you, you can ask 
apt-listbugs to pin the package, which means that the buggy version will 
be forbidden from your system. apt/aptitude will then A) try to 
calculate an upgrade which honours that hold (so dependent packages will 
also be held back, but non-dependent packages will be upgraded) and B) 
upgrade to the next-allowed version when it becomes available (assuming 
you don't also pin that one).




Charlie



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Suggested apt-get dist-upgrade.........

[Charlie]

It was suggested that someone [lost the email] upgrade their system with
apt-get dist-upgrade?

I suppose depending on what packages are installed on a system would
suggest which of these bugs could be problematical:

Summary:
 libreoffice(2 bugs), akonadi-server(1 bug), libkf5auth5(1 bug),
 libqt5x11extras5(1 bug), libwebkit2gtk-4.0-37(1 bug)

and if it would be a good idea to continue if possible? Because putting
them on hold doesn't allow upgrading.

Charlie

-- 
Registered Linux User:- 329524
***

Pity the man who has a character to support -- it is worse than
a large family -- he is silent poor indeed. - Henry David
Thoreau

***

Debian GNU/Linux - Magic indeed.

-

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade shows kept back packages

[Martin T]

On 8/27/15, David Wright deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk wrote:
 Quoting Martin T (m4rtn...@gmail.com):
 Hi,

 as far as I know, kept back packages in Debian are shown in case
 package can not be upgraded with apt-get upgrade because upgrade
 requires to install new packages. Usually this can be fixed with
 apt-get dist-upgrade because this will install new packages if needed.

 Now for some reason db5.1-util package is kept back despite the fact
 that I execute apt-get dist-upgrade:

 I'm not sure which distribution you're running.

 [snip]

 Am I correct that db5.1-util is kept back because it replaces
 libdb5.1 which is required by python2.6 which I have installed? Output
 of apt-cache can be seen below:

 So what depends on python2.6 that won't be satisfied with 2.7?

 My wheezy shows libdb5.1:i386 5.1.29-5 and jessie has libdb5.3:i386
 5.3.28-9
 (assuming they're related). Neither has python2.6.

 Cheers,
 David.



How would you check the packages which depend on python2.6 that won't
be satisfied with python2.7? Simply compare the outputs of apt-cache
rdepends python2.6 and apt-cache rdepends python2.7?


thanks,
Martin

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade shows kept back packages

[David Wright]

Quoting Martin T (m4rtn...@gmail.com):
 On 8/27/15, David Wright deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk wrote:

  So what depends on python2.6 that won't be satisfied with 2.7?
 
  My wheezy shows libdb5.1:i386 5.1.29-5 and jessie has libdb5.3:i386
  5.3.28-9
  (assuming they're related). Neither has python2.6.

 How would you check the packages which depend on python2.6 that won't
 be satisfied with python2.7? Simply compare the outputs of apt-cache
 rdepends python2.6 and apt-cache rdepends python2.7?

I would use   aptitude why python2.6   to see why it's still there.
If the list is boring, lots of A(utomatic) items and/or Suggests,
then you don't need it. The way that I would purge it is probably
also to run aptitude (with no arguments):
/^python2.6
n (as many times as required to highlight python2.6 itself)
_ (to purge)
See if you get a red response. If so (and you'll probably get its
pythonXXX-minimal highlighted)
^u (to back out)
Move to the offending package
_ (to purge it)
If that is happy (no red), navigate to python2.6
_ (to purge it again)
and carry on like that. When you eventually press g you may see other
packages listed that it can remove as they were automatically
installed. If you don't like g's list, back out with q. q backs out of
g, and ^u backs out of _ (^u may be needed multiple times).

Cheers,
David.

apt-get dist-upgrade shows kept back packages

[Martin T]

Hi,

as far as I know, kept back packages in Debian are shown in case
package can not be upgraded with apt-get upgrade because upgrade
requires to install new packages. Usually this can be fixed with
apt-get dist-upgrade because this will install new packages if needed.

Now for some reason db5.1-util package is kept back despite the fact
that I execute apt-get dist-upgrade:

root@server:~# apt-get dist-upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Calculating upgrade... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
  db5.1-util
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
root@server:~#


I even don't need the db5.1-util package because it satisfies
dependencies for packages(partimage-server and db-upgrade-util)
which I don't have installed:

root@server:~# apt-cache rdepends db5.1-util
db5.1-util
Reverse Depends:
  partimage-server
  db-upgrade-util
root@server:~# apt-cache policy db5.1-util partimage-server db-upgrade-util
db5.1-util:
  Installed: 5.1.29-5
  Candidate: 5.1.29-9
  Version table:
 5.1.29-9 0
500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ stable/main i386 Packages
 *** 5.1.29-5 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
partimage-server:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 0.6.8-3
  Version table:
 0.6.8-3 0
500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ stable/main i386 Packages
db-upgrade-util:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 5.3.0
  Version table:
 5.3.0 0
500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ stable/main i386 Packages
root@server:~#


Am I correct that db5.1-util is kept back because it replaces
libdb5.1 which is required by python2.6 which I have installed? Output
of apt-cache can be seen below:

root@server:~# apt-cache depends db5.1-util
db5.1-util
  Depends: libc6
  Breaks: libdb5.1
  Replaces: libdb5.1
root@server:~# apt-cache rdepends libdb5.1
libdb5.1
Reverse Depends:
  python2.6
  db5.1-util
  db5.1-util
  db5.1-util
root@server:~# apt-cache policy python2.6
python2.6:
  Installed: 2.6.8-1.1
  Candidate: 2.6.8-1.1
  Version table:
 *** 2.6.8-1.1 0
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
root@server:~#


thanks,
Martin

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade shows kept back packages

[David Wright]

Quoting Martin T (m4rtn...@gmail.com):
 Hi,
 
 as far as I know, kept back packages in Debian are shown in case
 package can not be upgraded with apt-get upgrade because upgrade
 requires to install new packages. Usually this can be fixed with
 apt-get dist-upgrade because this will install new packages if needed.
 
 Now for some reason db5.1-util package is kept back despite the fact
 that I execute apt-get dist-upgrade:

I'm not sure which distribution you're running.

[snip]

 Am I correct that db5.1-util is kept back because it replaces
 libdb5.1 which is required by python2.6 which I have installed? Output
 of apt-cache can be seen below:

So what depends on python2.6 that won't be satisfied with 2.7?

My wheezy shows libdb5.1:i386 5.1.29-5 and jessie has libdb5.3:i386 5.3.28-9
(assuming they're related). Neither has python2.6.

Cheers,
David.

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade shows kept back packages

[D. R. Evans]

Martin T wrote on 08/27/2015 08:08 AM:

 
 Now for some reason db5.1-util package is kept back despite the fact
 that I execute apt-get dist-upgrade:
 

I did an upgrade yesterday, and saw the same thing.

Experience suggests to me that it's a packaging dependency inconsistency
somewhere and will get fixed in due course.

  Doc

-- 
Web:  http://www.sff.net/people/N7DR



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Problem to apt-get dist-upgrade

[Magnus R]

Dear all,

I run Debian Unstable. I haven't been able to do a

apt-get dist-upgrade

for some time now since it wants to remove some essential packages
which after upgrading is not installable anymore, for example konsole
and okular.

The output from apt-get dist-upgrade is:

Calculating upgrade... The following packages were automatically
installed and are no longer required:

g++-4.9 gstreamer1.0-plugins-base:i386 hdf5-helpers icu-devtools ipython isympy kdelibs-bin konsole-kpart liba52-0.7.4-dev libarpack2 libarpack2-dev libaudio2:i386 libavcodec-dev libavcodec-ffmpeg-extra56:i386 libavformat-dev libavresample-ffmpeg2:i386 libavutil-dev libavutil-ffmpeg54:i386 libblacs-mpi-dev libblacs-openmpi1 libblas-dev libboost-chrono-dev libboost-filesystem-dev libboost-filesystem1.55.0 libboost-iostreams1.55.0 libboost-math-dev libboost-mpi-dev libboost-program-options-dev libboost-program-options1.55.0 libboost-regex1.58.0 libboost-serialization-dev libboost-thread1.55.0 libboost-timer-dev libbtf1.2.0 libcdparanoia0:i386 libcf0 libcsparse3.1.2 libcxsparse3.1.2 libdbusmenu-qt5-2 libdc1394-22-dev libdolfin1.5 libeigen3-dev libexiv2-14 libfaac-dev libfaad-dev libfftw3-mpi-dev libfftw3-mpi3 libfontconfig1-dev libfreetype6-dev libgl2ps-dev libgl2ps0 libgomp1:i386 libgsm1-dev libgstreamer-plugins-base1.0-0:i386 libgstreamer1.0-0:i386 libhdf5-8 libhdf5-cpp-8 libhdf5-dev 
libhdf5-mpi-dev libhdf5-openmpi-8 libhdf5-openmpi-dev libhypre-2.8.0b libhypre-dev libicu-dev libjs-jquery-ui libkf5attica5 libkf5auth-data libkf5auth5 libkf5bookmarks-data libkf5bookmarks5 libkf5codecs-data libkf5codecs5 libkf5completion-data libkf5completion5 libkf5config-bin libkf5config-data libkf5configcore5 libkf5configgui5 libkf5configwidgets-data libkf5configwidgets5 libkf5coreaddons-data libkf5coreaddons5 libkf5crash5 libkf5dbusaddons-bin libkf5dbusaddons-data libkf5dbusaddons5 libkf5globalaccel-bin libkf5globalaccel-data libkf5globalaccel5 libkf5globalaccelprivate5 libkf5guiaddons5 libkf5i18n-data libkf5i18n5 libkf5iconthemes-bin libkf5iconthemes-data libkf5iconthemes5 libkf5itemviews-data libkf5itemviews5 libkf5jobwidgets-data libkf5jobwidgets5 libkf5kdelibs4support-data libkf5kdelibs4support5 libkf5kdelibs4support5-bin libkf5kiocore5 libkf5kiofilewidgets5 libkf5kiowidgets5 libkf5notifications-data libkf5notifications5 libkf5notifyconfig-data libkf5notifyconfig5 libkf5par

ts-data libkf5parts-plugins libkf5parts5 libkf5pty-data libkf5pty5 
libkf5service-bin libkf5service-data libkf5service5 libkf5solid5 
libkf5solid5-data libkf5sonnet5-data libkf5sonnetcore5 libkf5sonnetui5 
libkf5textwidgets-data libkf5textwidgets5 libkf5widgetsaddons-data 
libkf5widgetsaddons5 libkf5windowsystem-data libkf5windowsystem5 
libkf5xmlgui-bin libkf5xmlgui-data libkf5xmlgui5 libkjsembed4 libklu1.2.1 
libkntlm4 libkrosscore4 liblapack-dev liblcms2-2:i386 libldl2.1.0 libmng1:i386 
libmp3lame-dev libmumps-4.10.0 libmumps-dev libnepomuk4 libnepomukquery4a 
libnepomukutils4 libnetcdf-dev libnetcdf7 libnetcdfc++4 libnetcdfc7 libnetcdff5 
libogg-dev libopencore-amrnb-dev libopencore-amrwb-dev liborc-0.4-dev 
libparpack2 libpetsc3.4.2 libpetsc3.4.2-dev libphonon4qt5-4 libpng12-dev 
libpolkit-qt5-1-1 libptscotch-5.1 libptscotch-dev libqt4-dbus:i386 
libqt4-network:i386 libqt4-opengl:i386 libqt4-xml:i386 libqt4-xmlpatterns:i386 
libqt5core5a libqt5dbus5 libqt5gui5 libqt5network5 libqt5printsupp
ort5 libqt5script5 libqt5svg5 libqt5test5 libqt5widgets5 libqt5x11extras5 
libqt5xml5 libqtcore4:i386 libqtdbus4:i386 libqtgui4:i386 libqtwebkit4:i386 
libraw1394-dev libraw1394-tools libscalapack-mpi-dev libscalapack-openmpi1 
libschroedinger-dev libscotch-5.1 libscotch-dev libshine3:i386 libslepc3.4.2 
libslepc3.4.2-dev libsoxr0:i386 libspooles-dev libspooles2.2 libspqr1.3.1 
libsqlite3-0:i386 libssl1.0.0:i386 libsuitesparse-dev libsuperlu-dev 
libsuperlu4 libswresample-dev libswresample-ffmpeg1:i386 libswscale-dev 
libtheora-dev libtwolame0:i386 libvorbis-dev libvtk5-dev libvtk5-qt4-dev 
libvtk5.8 libvtk5.8-qt4 libwavpack1:i386 libwebp5:i386 libx264-146:i386 
libx264-dev libxcb-xkb1 libxft-dev libxkbcommon-x11-0 libxml2-dev libxss-dev 
libxt6:i386 libxv1:i386 libxvidcore-dev linux-headers-4.0.0-2-amd64 
linux-headers-4.0.0-2-common linux-image-4.0.0-2-amd64 linux-kbuild-4.0 
mpi-default-bin openmpi-bin pgadmin3-data pyro python-colorama python-dateutil 
python-decorator python-distlib python-
ffc python-fiat python-funcsigs python-gmpy python-instant python-matplotlib 
python-matplotlib-data python-mock python-mpmath python-netcdf python-pbr 
python-pip python-pmw python-pyglet python-pyx python-scientific 
python-scitools python-simplegeneric python-sympy python-tz python-ufl 
python-ufl-doc python-vtk python-wheel qttranslations5-l10n sonnet-plugins swig 
swig2.0 tcl-vtk tcl8.5-dev tk8.5-dev x11proto-scrnsaver-dev

Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.  Done

The following packages will be REMOVED:

dolfin-bin dolfin-doc fenics katepart kde-runtime kdelibs5-plugins

Re: Problem to apt-get dist-upgrade

[Joe]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:12:19 +0200 (CEST)
Magnus R mara...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear all,
 
 I run Debian Unstable. I haven't been able to do a
 
 apt-get dist-upgrade
 
 for some time now since it wants to remove some essential packages
 which after upgrading is not installable anymore, for example konsole
 and okular.
 

Yes.

 
 Is there anything I can do to fix this?

No.

 Or do I just have to wait
 until the packages I need are back to normal (that is installable).
 

Yes. There is a new revision of the C libraries available. It is not
compatible with [the existing compile state of] some of your current
packages, and some packages require it. If you want one of the new
packages, whether for installation or upgrade, the new libraries are
necessary, which in turn requires the removal of those packages which
won't work with it.

There is no way to satisfy the requirements, until the existing
incompatible packages are made to work with the new libraries. There's
probably only a small number directly involved, but the large web of
dependencies spreads the trouble to hundreds of packages.

If you have aptitude installed, and if you don't it's too late to
install the current version, you might try an aptitude full-upgrade.
This is equivalent to the apt-get dist-upgrade, but with better
dependency resolution. I don't think you will gain much, my aptitude
goes away and thinks for a while, and then gives up, something I've
never seen happen before. It offers to spend longer looking, but it
isn't going to find an answer.

I presume you are still doing an apt-get upgrade, which should deal
with most of the packages which aren't involved in the current mess. I'm
seeing aptitude safe-upgrade working for twenty to thirty packages a
day. You might, with very careful cherry-picking, manage another two or
three, which I was doing using Synaptic. I've given up now, as it's not
worth wading through over two hundred to find a couple which work.

-- 
Joe

Re: Problem to apt-get dist-upgrade

[Sven Hartge]

Magnus R mara...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is there anything I can do to fix this? Or do I just have to wait
 until the packages I need are back to normal (that is installable).

There are several very big libary and compiler transitions going on at
the moment.

You can upgrade upgradable packages by using only apt upgrade instead
of dist-upgrade, but other than that you just have to wait.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re: Problem to apt-get dist-upgrade

[Magnus R]

Is there anything I can do to fix this? Or do I just have to wait
until the packages I need are back to normal (that is installable).


There are several very big libary and compiler transitions going on at
the moment.

You can upgrade upgradable packages by using only apt upgrade instead
of dist-upgrade, but other than that you just have to wait.


Ok that is what I suspected. Thank you so much!

Cheers,

Magnus



Grüße,
Sven.

--
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie

[Bernard Schoenacker]

Le Sat, 27 Jun 2015 07:08:49 + (UTC),
fred f.r...@yahoo.fr a écrit :

 
 
  Bonsoir Bernard,
  je ne comprends pas bien ta réponse, tu veux bien en dire
  plus ?Merci !Fred 
 
 sudo -s
 apt-get install apt aptitude dpkg libc6
 
 
 slt
 bernard
 
     
 Bonjour Bernard,
 tu veux dire qu'il faut mettre à jour les paquets que tu cites avant
 un dist-upgrade ?Merci,Fred 

bonjour,

il faut mettre à jour les paquets que je cite avant de faire un 
dist-upgrade
mode opératoire :

sudo -s
apt-get update --fix-missing
apt-get install apt aptitude dpkg libc6
apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade


slt
bernard

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150627101525.1ad6181d.bernard.schoenac...@free.fr

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie

[fred]

bonjour,

il faut mettre à jour les paquets que je cite avant de faire un 
dist-upgrade
mode opératoire :

sudo -s
apt-get update --fix-missing
apt-get install apt aptitude dpkg libc6
apt-get upgrade
apt-get dist-upgrade




slt
bernard



Ok merci pour l'info Bernard.
Parcontre sudo -s pour quelle utilité ?Quand il s'agit de modifier le système à 
ce point,
c'est root qui s'en occupe ici..
Merci,Fred


   

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie

[fred]

 Bonsoir Bernard,
 je ne comprends pas bien ta réponse, tu veux bien en dire
 plus ?Merci !Fred 

sudo -s
apt-get install apt aptitude dpkg libc6


slt
bernard

    
Bonjour Bernard,
tu veux dire qu'il faut mettre à jour les paquets que tu cites avant un 
dist-upgrade ?Merci,Fred
   

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie

[maderios]

Le 26/06/2015 07:13, fred a écrit :

Bonjour à tou-te-s,

j'hésite à mettre à jour avec la commande citée en sujet de ce mel,
quelqu'un ici aurait des retours positifs à partager ?

Bonjour
1) D'un point de vue général, tout changement vers un progrès implique 
des risques, même s'ils sont minimes.

2) Choisir, c'est perdre

M

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/558d0e19.8030...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie

[Sébastien NOBILI]

Bonjour,

Le vendredi 26 juin 2015 à 10:32, maderios a écrit :
 Le 26/06/2015 07:13, fred a écrit :
 Bonjour à tou-te-s,
 
 j'hésite à mettre à jour avec la commande citée en sujet de ce mel,
 quelqu'un ici aurait des retours positifs à partager ?
 Bonjour
 1) D'un point de vue général, tout changement vers un progrès implique des
 risques, même s'ils sont minimes.
 2) Choisir, c'est perdre

J'aime bien ta réponse, elle m'a bien fait marrer !

Pour en revenir à la question, si tu veux passer de Wheezy à Jessie, tu devras
utiliser cette commande, donc si ton hésitation est relative à la commande en
elle-même, tu peux être rassuré, tous ceux qui ont fait cette mise-à-jour ont
fait comme ça.

Si ton hésitation est relative à Jessie et son ecosystème, sache que tu ne
pourras pas rester éternellement avec Wheezy. Tu peux cependant la conserver
encore un peu puisque cette version bénéficiera (comme toutes les précédentes)
d'un support sécurité pendant 1 an et (il me semble) d'un support LTS ensuite.

Pour ma part, je ne regrette pas mon passage à Jessie.

Enfin, si tu te décides à mettre à jour, il est plus que recommandé de lire les
notes de publication :

https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/releasenotes

Sébastien

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150626085828.gb3...@sebian.nob900.homeip.net

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie

[fred]

 Le 26/06/2015 07:13, fred a écrit :
 Bonjour à tou-te-s,
 
 j'hésite à mettre à jour avec la commande citée en sujet de ce mel,
 quelqu'un ici aurait des retours positifs à partager ?


Si ton hésitation est relative à Jessie et son ecosystème, sache que tu ne
pourras pas rester éternellement avec Wheezy. Tu peux cependant la conserver
encore un peu puisque cette version bénéficiera (comme toutes les précédentes)
d'un support sécurité pendant 1 an et (il me semble) d'un support LTS ensuite.

Pour ma part, je ne regrette pas mon passage à Jessie.

Enfin, si tu te décides à mettre à jour, il est plus que recommandé de lire les
notes de publication :

    https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/releasenotes

Sébastien




Merci de ta réponse rapide Sébastien,
effectivement l'hésitation est du coté écosystème VS support longue durée...
Les doutes sont principalement sur systemd (sans vouloir rentrer dans le 
trollage SVP)et la possibilité d'avoir 2 fenêtres dans Nautilus avec F3, ou de 
remplacer Nautilus,mais par quoi, j'utilise pas mal de scripts dans ce 
merveilleux navigateur...
Et puis, j'avais commencé à lire les notes de publication, mais ne peut pas 
faire ça 
comme un job à plein temps... 

D'où la question ici, et ta réponse rassure chouïa, merci !
Si d'autres satisfait-e-s voulaient partager, ou des mécontent-e-s râler ?
Merci !Fred

   

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie

[fred]

De : maderios mader...@gmail.com
 À : debian-user-french@lists.debian.org 
 Envoyé le : Vendredi 26 juin 2015 10h32
 Objet : Re: apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie
   


Le 26/06/2015 07:13, fred a écrit :
 Bonjour à tou-te-s,

 j'hésite à mettre à jour avec la commande citée en sujet de ce mel,
 quelqu'un ici aurait des retours positifs à partager ?
Bonjour
1) D'un point de vue général, tout changement vers un progrès implique 
des risques, même s'ils sont minimes.
2) Choisir, c'est perdre



M


Merci de ta réponse M, j'adore commencer le weekend en rigolant ;)Fred


   

apt-get dist-upgrade de Wheezy vers Jessie

[fred]

Bonjour à tou-te-s,
j'hésite à mettre à jour avec la commande citée en sujet de ce mel, 
quelqu'un ici aurait des retours positifs à partager ?
Merci !Fred

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade on shutdown ?

[Joel Rees]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote:
 apt-get upgrade seems to have less reboot requiring updates.

 There ought be a way to schedule a dist-upgrade, to occur the next
 time I shutdown my computer - not on hibernate/suspend or even logout
 (I work on cmd line here and there).

 Doing a dist-upgrade right when I'm shutting the machine down, is
 usually the most convenient time for me (before bedtime or whatever),
 and so this ought be an easy thing to automate/achieve (as an option
 at least).

 Another reason to do so, if one is normally in a gui, and running sid,
 is that sometimes gui packages break with an upgrade and a logout at
 least is required. Sometimes a reboot is required.

Well, if you get it running, what I will want to know is whether you
don't find it refusing to shut down just exactly when you need it to
shut down in a hurry.

That happens to me a lot when I'm shutting MSWindows down.

A thought, to reduce the impact, I would tend to want to let it
download n the background if I were going to go with this. Then the
only thing that would be holding you up on shutdown would be the
install part.

I think I'd also like it to query me before it started the install, so
I have a chance to hold the install off when I need to reboot it quick
or something.

Not telling you what to do with  your computer, of course, just
thinking out loud.

-- 
Joel Rees

Be careful where you see conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart.


-- 
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/caar43ipmpyfkssn+1xkout7zbo-l_0j-qxmfrlzep3dy2qt...@mail.gmail.com

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade on shutdown ?

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 1/24/14, Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote:
 apt-get upgrade seems to have less reboot requiring updates.

 There ought be a way to schedule a dist-upgrade, to occur the next
 time I shutdown my computer - not on hibernate/suspend or even logout
 (I work on cmd line here and there).

 Doing a dist-upgrade right when I'm shutting the machine down, is
 usually the most convenient time for me (before bedtime or whatever),

 A thought, to reduce the impact, I would tend to want to let it
 download n the background if I were going to go with this. Then the

Ubuntu had some GUI option thing to auto-download (and also to
auto-install, which I never enabled) updates.

 only thing that would be holding you up on shutdown would be the
 install part.

Definitely the way to go.

 I think I'd also like it to query me before it started the install, so
 I have a chance to hold the install off when I need to reboot it quick
 or something.

Totally agree.

 Not telling you what to do with  your computer, of course, just
 thinking out loud.

O. M. G.  Yu tellin' me how to shut the fine PC down yo?!? Yeah ah got
sumthin' ta say ... that one over there ... he tellin' me what to do
yo!

ok ok ... that's enough now ... OK, we'll be right back after this break.


-- 
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/CAOsGNSRp_5OkkhMX3vMJuaG5nbF1gbwy=px9wqf4xsopbsy...@mail.gmail.com

apt-get dist-upgrade on shutdown ?

[Zenaan Harkness]

apt-get upgrade seems to have less reboot requiring updates.

There ought be a way to schedule a dist-upgrade, to occur the next
time I shutdown my computer - not on hibernate/suspend or even logout
(I work on cmd line here and there).

Doing a dist-upgrade right when I'm shutting the machine down, is
usually the most convenient time for me (before bedtime or whatever),
and so this ought be an easy thing to automate/achieve (as an option
at least).

Another reason to do so, if one is normally in a gui, and running sid,
is that sometimes gui packages break with an upgrade and a logout at
least is required. Sometimes a reboot is required.

TIA
Zenaan


-- 
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/caosgnsr+gnlfhxvn3vchubpkbpgshq34bofysj_5d8aglpi...@mail.gmail.com

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade on shutdown ?

[Darac Marjal]

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:40:26AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
 apt-get upgrade seems to have less reboot requiring updates.
 
 There ought be a way to schedule a dist-upgrade, to occur the next
 time I shutdown my computer - not on hibernate/suspend or even logout
 (I work on cmd line here and there).
 
 Doing a dist-upgrade right when I'm shutting the machine down, is
 usually the most convenient time for me (before bedtime or whatever),
 and so this ought be an easy thing to automate/achieve (as an option
 at least).
 
 Another reason to do so, if one is normally in a gui, and running sid,
 is that sometimes gui packages break with an upgrade and a logout at
 least is required. Sometimes a reboot is required.

Write a script that runs apt-get dist-upgrade with appropriate
options (things to consider might be --assume-yes/--assume-no,
--trivial-only and maybe DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive. The hazard of
doing an upgrade at shutdown is that you are asked a question and have
walked away from the machine so it never halts).

When you are happy with the script, create an initscript for it that
*starts* in runlevels 0 (halt) and 6 (shutdown). Pitch it to happen
sometime between X (and other user-facing services) stopping and the
network going down.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade on shutdown ?

[Darac Marjal]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:08:29PM +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Thursday 23 January 2014 13:52:39 Darac Marjal wrote:
  runlevels 0 (halt) and 6 (shutdown)
 
 runlevel 6 is surely reboot?  Whereas shutdown needs further 
 information:  e.g. shutdown -r reboot, shutdown -h halt
 http://linux.101hacks.com/unix/shutdown/

Bah, yes, you're right. That was a PEBKAC :)



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade on shutdown ?

[Lisi Reisz]

On Thursday 23 January 2014 13:52:39 Darac Marjal wrote:
 runlevels 0 (halt) and 6 (shutdown)

runlevel 6 is surely reboot?  Whereas shutdown needs further 
information:  e.g. shutdown -r reboot, shutdown -h halt
http://linux.101hacks.com/unix/shutdown/

Lisi


-- 
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/201401231508.29826.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade on shutdown ?

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Jo, 23 ian 14, 13:52:39, Darac Marjal wrote:
 
 When you are happy with the script, create an initscript for it that
 *starts* in runlevels 0 (halt) and 6 (shutdown). Pitch it to happen
 sometime between X (and other user-facing services) stopping and the
 network going down.

Not sure if this is going to work due to /etc/init.d/sendsigs

#! /bin/sh
### BEGIN INIT INFO
# Provides:  sendsigs
# Required-Start:
# Required-Stop: umountnfs
# Default-Start:
# Default-Stop:  0 6
# Short-Description: Kill all remaining processes.

I'd rather put a 'shutdown -h now' at the end of the script.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Javier Parapar]

Same situation here, I've tried with several updated mirrors (
http://mirror.debian.org/status.html) and no difference.

According to this
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=669278 should
we expect any update in the repositories soon?

Regards,

-- 
Javier Parapar

Re: Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Javier Parapar]

BTW by installing phonon-backend-null the dist-upgrade can be performed,
but no audio or video could be generated meanwhile a proper backend is not
installed.

-- 
Javier Parapar

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

Not all Debian mirrors work right ...

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:27:54AM +0530, Amrish Purohit wrote:
...
 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
 N: Unable to locate package libvlccore4

Change mirror site from http://ftp.us.debian.org to and something else
and try again.

Good luck,

Osamu


-- 
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/20120418140741.GA9651@localhost

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Indulekha]

Amrish Purohit amrish.dis...@gmail.com wrote:
 I have repeated same with latest 6.0.4 kde live dvd, but getting the 
 saem result.


Hmmm.
Did you run apt-get update after changing your sources.list?

-- 
❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤   
 Indulekha 


-- 
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/20120418150554.GA1403@radhesyama

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Amrish Purohit]

I have repeated same with latest 6.0.4 kde live dvd, but getting the 
saem result.

This time I have added only for repositories as listed below

## Debian Main Repos
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib

## Debian Update Repos
deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib

please help me to fix this issue.

Regards
Amrish

On 04/16/2012 04:24 PM, Amrish Purohit wrote:

On 04/13/2012 01:29 AM, Florian Kulzer wrote:

[ Please turn off the HTML part of your messages. ]


I have turned of HTML part. Sorry for inconvenience.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:48:15 +0530, Amrish Purohit wrote:

Hi,
I installed debian stable kde with live cd
debian-live-6.0.3-i386-kde-desktop.iso. My PC was not connected
with internet, so after the installation, my source.list file was
with only one line of cd - repository. Then I populated
/source.list/ with following repositories because I want to install
debian with testing.

## Debian Main Repos
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free

## Debian Update Repos
deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main
contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates
main contrib non-free

# UNOFFICIAL REPOS ##


[ snip: debian-multimedia, google, skype ]


To convert debian stable in testing, I fired following commands.
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade


For the record: If you want to set up a testing system starting from a
stable installation CD then I would recommend to only install a
minimal stable system (no graphical environment etc.), upgrade this
minimal system carefully to testing (kernel, udev, dpkg, and apt first,
the do an upgrade, followed by a dist-upgrade) and then install the
rest of the system from testing. Your approach is asking for trouble.



Yes, I know that this is good method, but It requires more manual task
to set a working desktop environment.

But dist-upgrade failed with following error.
E: Could not perform immediate configuration on
'phonon-backend-vlc'. Please see man 5 apt.conf under
APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)


I think one or more of the following may help to untangle your system:

- Comment out all third-party repositories and run apt-get update
again (as Daniel has already suggested).


I have done it, but same error is continued.

- Add the usual lines for the stable repository (squeeze) to your
sources list and run apt-get update. (There may be rare cases where
a stable package needs to be installed temporarily to help break a
dependency loop.)


I am going to try with latest 6.0.4 kde live cd and fire dist-upgrade
and hope, it may solve the prob.


- Run apt-get install -f, put its complete output on pastebin.com (or a
similar site) and send us the link.

- Also show us the output of:
apt-cache policy phonon-backend-vlc libvlc5 libvlccore4

here is output:
phonon-backend-vlc:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 0.5.0-1
Version table:
0.5.0-1 0
500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
libvlc5:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.0.0-6
Version table:
2.0.0-6 0
500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
N: Unable to locate package libvlccore4


dpkg -l \*phonon\* | awk '/^[^D|+]/{print $2,$3}'

libphonon4 4:4.6.0really4.4.2-1
libqt4-phonon none
libsmokephonon3 4:4.4.5-3
phonon 4:4.6.0really4.4.2-1
phonon-backend none
phonon-backend-gstreamer none
phonon-backend-mplayer none
phonon-backend-vlc none
phonon-backend-xine 4:4.6.0really4.4.2-1

Thanks
Amrish




--
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/4f8e57e2.3080...@gmail.com

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Amrish Purohit]

On 04/13/2012 01:29 AM, Florian Kulzer wrote:

[ Please turn off the HTML part of your messages. ]


I have turned of HTML part. Sorry for inconvenience.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:48:15 +0530, Amrish Purohit wrote:

Hi,
I installed debian stable kde with live cd
debian-live-6.0.3-i386-kde-desktop.iso.  My PC was not connected
with internet, so after the installation, my source.list file was
with only one line of cd - repository. Then I populated
/source.list/ with following repositories because I want to install
debian with testing.

## Debian Main Repos
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free

## Debian Update Repos
deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main
contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates
main contrib non-free

# UNOFFICIAL  REPOS ##


  [ snip: debian-multimedia, google, skype ]


To convert debian stable in testing, I fired following commands.
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade


For the record: If you want to set up a testing system starting from a
stable installation CD then I would recommend to only install a
minimal stable system (no graphical environment etc.), upgrade this
minimal system carefully to testing (kernel, udev, dpkg, and apt first,
the do an upgrade, followed by a dist-upgrade) and then install the
rest of the system from testing. Your approach is asking for trouble.



Yes, I know that this is good method, but It requires more manual task 
to set a working desktop environment.

But dist-upgrade failed with following error.
E: Could not perform immediate configuration on
'phonon-backend-vlc'. Please see man 5 apt.conf under
APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)


I think one or more of the following may help to untangle your system:

- Comment out all third-party repositories and run apt-get update
   again (as Daniel has already suggested).


I have done it, but same error is continued.

- Add the usual lines for the stable repository (squeeze) to your
   sources list and run apt-get update. (There may be rare cases where
   a stable package needs to be installed temporarily to help break a
   dependency loop.)


I am going to try with latest 6.0.4 kde live cd and fire dist-upgrade 
and hope, it may solve the prob.


- Run apt-get install -f, put its complete output on pastebin.com (or a
   similar site) and send us the link.

- Also show us the output of:
   apt-cache policy phonon-backend-vlc libvlc5 libvlccore4

here is output:
phonon-backend-vlc:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 0.5.0-1
  Version table:
 0.5.0-1 0
500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
libvlc5:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 2.0.0-6
  Version table:
 2.0.0-6 0
500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages
N: Unable to locate package libvlccore4


   dpkg -l \*phonon\* | awk '/^[^D|+]/{print $2,$3}'

libphonon4 4:4.6.0really4.4.2-1
libqt4-phonon none
libsmokephonon3 4:4.4.5-3
phonon 4:4.6.0really4.4.2-1
phonon-backend none
phonon-backend-gstreamer none
phonon-backend-mplayer none
phonon-backend-vlc none
phonon-backend-xine 4:4.6.0really4.4.2-1

Thanks
Amrish


--
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/4f8bfa51.30...@gmail.com

apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Amrish Purohit]

Hi,
I installed debian stable kde with live cd 
debian-live-6.0.3-i386-kde-desktop.iso.  My PC was not connected with 
internet, so after the installation, my source.list file was with only 
one line of cd - repository. Then I populated /source.list/ with 
following repositories because I want to install debian with testing.


## Debian Main Repos
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free

## Debian Update Repos
deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main 
contrib non-free

deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main 
contrib non-free


##
# UNOFFICIAL  REPOS ##
##

## 3rd Party Binary Repos

 Debian Multimedia - http://www.debian-multimedia.org/
## Run this command: apt-get update  apt-get install 
debian-multimedia-keyring  apt-get update

deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org testing main non-free

 Google Linux Software Repositories - http://www.google.com
## Run this command: wget -q -O - 
https://dl-ssl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | apt-key add -

deb http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ stable non-free main

 Skype - http://www.skype.com
## Run this command: gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0xd66b746e 
 gpg --export --armor 0xd66b746e | apt-key add -

deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free

To convert debian stable in testing, I fired following commands.
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
But dist-upgrade failed with following error.
E: Could not perform immediate configuration on 'phonon-backend-vlc'. 
Please see man 5 apt.conf under APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)


Please help to fix this issue.

Regards
Amrish

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Daniel Koch]

Have you tried disabling all 3rd party repositories first ?

Am 12. April 2012 11:18 schrieb Amrish Purohit amrish.dis...@gmail.com:

  Hi,
 I installed debian stable kde with live cd
 debian-live-6.0.3-i386-kde-desktop.iso.  My PC was not connected with
 internet, so after the installation, my source.list file was with only one
 line of cd - repository. Then I populated *source.list* with following
 repositories because I want to install debian with testing.

 ## Debian Main Repos
 deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
 deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free

 ## Debian Update Repos
 deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
 deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main contrib
 non-free
 deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
 deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main
 contrib non-free

 ##
 # UNOFFICIAL  REPOS ##
 ##

 ## 3rd Party Binary Repos

  Debian Multimedia - http://www.debian-multimedia.org/
 ## Run this command: apt-get update  apt-get install
 debian-multimedia-keyring  apt-get update
 deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org testing main non-free

  Google Linux Software Repositories - http://www.google.com
 ## Run this command: wget -q -O -
 https://dl-ssl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | apt-key add -
 deb http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ stable non-free main

  Skype - http://www.skype.com
 ## Run this command: gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0xd66b746e
  gpg --export --armor 0xd66b746e | apt-key add -
 deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free

 To convert debian stable in testing, I fired following commands.
 apt-get update
 apt-get dist-upgrade
 But dist-upgrade failed with following error.
 E: Could not perform immediate configuration on 'phonon-backend-vlc'.
 Please see man 5 apt.conf under APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)

 Please help to fix this issue.

 Regards
 Amrish

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Amrish Purohit]

Yes, I tried with that, but still dist-upgrade fails with same error.
thanks.

Amrish
On 04/12/2012 05:57 PM, Daniel Koch wrote:

Have you tried disabling all 3rd party repositories first ?

Am 12. April 2012 11:18 schrieb Amrish Purohit 
amrish.dis...@gmail.com mailto:amrish.dis...@gmail.com:


Hi,
I installed debian stable kde with live cd
debian-live-6.0.3-i386-kde-desktop.iso.  My PC was not connected
with internet, so after the installation, my source.list file was
with only one line of cd - repository. Then I populated
/source.list/ with following repositories because I want to
install debian with testing.

## Debian Main Repos
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free

## Debian Update Repos
deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main
contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib
non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates
main contrib non-free

##
# UNOFFICIAL  REPOS ##
##

## 3rd Party Binary Repos

 Debian Multimedia - http://www.debian-multimedia.org/
## Run this command: apt-get update  apt-get install
debian-multimedia-keyring  apt-get update
deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org testing main non-free

 Google Linux Software Repositories - http://www.google.com
## Run this command: wget -q -O -
https://dl-ssl.google.com/linux/linux_signing_key.pub | apt-key add -
deb http://dl.google.com/linux/deb/ stable non-free main

 Skype - http://www.skype.com
## Run this command: gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu
http://pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0xd66b746e  gpg --export
--armor 0xd66b746e | apt-key add -
deb http://download.skype.com/linux/repos/debian/ stable non-free

To convert debian stable in testing, I fired following commands.
apt-get update
apt-get dist-upgrade
But dist-upgrade failed with following error.
E: Could not perform immediate configuration on
'phonon-backend-vlc'. Please see man 5 apt.conf under
APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)

Please help to fix this issue.

Regards
Amrish

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Camaleón]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:48:15 +0530, Amrish Purohit wrote:

 Hi,

Hi, please, avoid using html formatting when posting, it's very hard to 
read under some clients, thanks.

 I installed debian stable kde with live cd
 debian-live-6.0.3-i386-kde-desktop.iso.  My PC was not connected with
 internet, so after the installation, my source.list file was with only
 one line of cd - repository. Then I populated /source.list/ with
 following repositories because I want to install debian with testing.
 
 ## Debian Main Repos
 deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free

(...)

Mmm... just out of curiosity, if you wanted to use testing instead 
stable, why is that you didn't download a testing ISO image (debian-
testing-i386-kde-CD-1.iso)?

 To convert debian stable in testing, I fired following commands. 
 apt-get update
 apt-get dist-upgrade
 But dist-upgrade failed with following error. E: Could not perform
 immediate configuration on 'phonon-backend-vlc'. Please see man 5
 apt.conf under APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)

It could be a specific problem with that package. Have you read the 
suggested doc?

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
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/jm6urd$gu4$8...@dough.gmane.org

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Sharon Kimble]

On 12/04/2012, Camaleón noela...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:48:15 +0530, Amrish Purohit wrote:

 Hi,

 Hi, please, avoid using html formatting when posting, it's very hard to
 read under some clients, thanks.

 I installed debian stable kde with live cd
 debian-live-6.0.3-i386-kde-desktop.iso.  My PC was not connected with
 internet, so after the installation, my source.list file was with only
 one line of cd - repository. Then I populated /source.list/ with
 following repositories because I want to install debian with testing.

 ## Debian Main Repos
 deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free

 (...)

 Mmm... just out of curiosity, if you wanted to use testing instead
 stable, why is that you didn't download a testing ISO image (debian-
 testing-i386-kde-CD-1.iso)?

 To convert debian stable in testing, I fired following commands.
 apt-get update
 apt-get dist-upgrade
 But dist-upgrade failed with following error. E: Could not perform
 immediate configuration on 'phonon-backend-vlc'. Please see man 5
 apt.conf under APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)

Do you have VLC installed from multimedia repo? If so, remove it and
then try updating and dist-upgradeing again

Sharon.
-- 
A taste of linux = http://www.sharons.org.uk/taste/index.html
efever = http://www.efever.blogspot.com/
efever = http://sharon04.livejournal.com/
Debian 6,0.4, Gnome 1:2.30+7, LibreOffice 3.5.1
Registered Linux user 334501


--
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/cam9u--dm1jj8oae1upttctndxwqzdcvggk-nsht+-snwung...@mail.gmail.com

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade failed.

[Florian Kulzer]

[ Please turn off the HTML part of your messages. ]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 14:48:15 +0530, Amrish Purohit wrote:
 Hi,
 I installed debian stable kde with live cd
 debian-live-6.0.3-i386-kde-desktop.iso.  My PC was not connected
 with internet, so after the installation, my source.list file was
 with only one line of cd - repository. Then I populated
 /source.list/ with following repositories because I want to install
 debian with testing.
 
 ## Debian Main Repos
 deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
 deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib non-free
 
 ## Debian Update Repos
 deb http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
 deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates main
 contrib non-free
 deb-src http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates main contrib non-free
 deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ wheezy-proposed-updates
 main contrib non-free
 
 # UNOFFICIAL  REPOS ##

 [ snip: debian-multimedia, google, skype ]

 To convert debian stable in testing, I fired following commands.
 apt-get update
 apt-get dist-upgrade

For the record: If you want to set up a testing system starting from a
stable installation CD then I would recommend to only install a
minimal stable system (no graphical environment etc.), upgrade this
minimal system carefully to testing (kernel, udev, dpkg, and apt first,
the do an upgrade, followed by a dist-upgrade) and then install the
rest of the system from testing. Your approach is asking for trouble.

 But dist-upgrade failed with following error.
 E: Could not perform immediate configuration on
 'phonon-backend-vlc'. Please see man 5 apt.conf under
 APT::Immediate-Configure for details. (2)

I think one or more of the following may help to untangle your system:

- Comment out all third-party repositories and run apt-get update
  again (as Daniel has already suggested).

- Add the usual lines for the stable repository (squeeze) to your
  sources list and run apt-get update. (There may be rare cases where
  a stable package needs to be installed temporarily to help break a
  dependency loop.)

- Run apt-get install -f, put its complete output on pastebin.com (or a
  similar site) and send us the link.

- Also show us the output of:
  apt-cache policy phonon-backend-vlc libvlc5 libvlccore4
  dpkg -l \*phonon\* | awk '/^[^D|+]/{print $2,$3}'

-- 
Regards,|
  Florian   | http://www.florian-kulzer.eu


-- 
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/20120412195911.GA21369@isar.localhost

apt-get dist-upgrade

[JB]

bonjour,
pour mon architecture:
Debian Wheezy AMD64 multicores Intel 64 bits
commande exécutée apt-get dist-upgrade
ci joint la trace de l'exécution:
http://cjoint.com/?3DkkAh62mXH

j'ai 2 remarques:
dans /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/multiarch j'ai i386,
ensuite -su
voyez-vous un remède?

faut-il refaire la manipulation communqué par Yann P.:
Si ça ne passe pas:
# mv /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/multiarch /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/multiarch.old
et retente le apt-get upgrade puis restaure le fichier multiarch après
coup.
à vous lire
A+
JB1

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1334046872.13707.92.ca...@alpha30.bohain.org

Re: apt-get dist-upgrade

[JB]

Le mardi 10 avril 2012 à 10:34 +0200, JB a écrit :
 bonjour,
 pour mon architecture:
 Debian Wheezy AMD64 multicores Intel 64 bits
 commande exécutée apt-get dist-upgrade
 ci joint la trace de l'exécution:
   http://cjoint.com/?3DkkAh62mXH
 
 j'ai 2 remarques:
 dans /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/multiarch j'ai i386,
 ensuite -su
 voyez-vous un remède?
 
 faut-il refaire la manipulation communqué par Yann P.:
 Si ça ne passe pas:
 # mv /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/multiarch /etc/dpkg/dpkg.cfg.d/multiarch.old
 et retente le apt-get upgrade puis restaure le fichier multiarch après
 coup.
 à vous lire
 A+
 JB1
 

ne pas tenir compte de -su, erreur de ma part
A+
JB1


-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1334047055.13707.93.ca...@alpha30.bohain.org

Re: Wheezy - aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get dist-upgrade

[Whit Hansell]

Tom, thank you for the info.  I agree w. sending in bug reports.  It's 
just that there is such a learning curve w.Gnome 3 and KDE4 which I had 
tried before I changed over to Gnome 2.30.x previously.  I have gone 
ahead and done the full apt-get dist-upgrade and played w. the new Gnome 
and found that I could do a Classic so am at that point.  Right now.  
Found the basic Gnome, the new one, is very slow and have seen that that 
is a problem w. it.  But it seems that the classic setup is closer to 
the older one so will be going back and forth between them so I can 
learn the new one while hopefullyG geting things done while using 
classic.


Again, Tom, thanks for your reply.  Cheers.
Whit

On 02/28/2012 01:03 AM, Tom H wrote:

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Whit Hansellskippe...@comcast.net  wrote:

On 02/27/2012 04:26 AM, Monsieur Louk wrote:


I think you'll find every thing you need in the Debian doc:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal

Quote: The difference between safe-upgrade/upgrade and
full-upgrade/dist-upgrade only appears when new versions of packages
stand in different dependency relationships from old versions of those
packages. The aptitude safe-upgrade command does not install new packages
nor remove installed packages.

Thanks for your reply.  I had done some googling at the debian site and
found info on the differences as you state.  I have to admit I am not sure
which is the best way to update/upgrade my system.  I had read a few years
ago that aptitude was the recommended way as it supposedly handles
dependencies better so have always used it.  But also knew about the
statement about it not removing packages, etc.  Actually I have  seen it do
some of that but they may be non-free and contrib.  I don't know.  I do know
that there are files removed and new ones installed but then that is NOT a
full package as in GNOME going from 2.30.x to Gnome 3.x.

Appreciate the replies.  Have received one comment to personal addy that
Gnome 3 is buggy and not to use it so am going to check around and see what
info I can find about it before I do an apt-get safe-upgrade.

Unless you use issue aptitude safe-upgrade --no-new-installs or have
Aptitude::CmdLine::Safe-Upgrade::No-New-Installs in
/etc/apt/apt.conf, aptitude safe-upgrade will install new packages
to resolve dependencies.

(If GNOME 3's buggy, file a bug or bugs!)





--
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/4f4eade6.7010...@comcast.net

Re: Wheezy - aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get dist-upgrade

[Shaun]

On 28/02/2012 01:25, Whit Hansell wrote:
 
 
 Thanks for your reply.  I had done some googling at the debian site and
 found info on the differences as you state.  I have to admit I am not
 sure which is the best way to update/upgrade my system.  I had read a
 few years ago that aptitude was the recommended way as it supposedly
 handles dependencies better so have always used it.  But also knew
 about the statement about it not removing packages, etc.  


I don't think Debian have made it too clear about which is the preferred
way of doing it simply because they like to promote choice of package
management tool.

And I can't recall 100% if this is all correct but it's my gist:

There was a time when aptitude was recommended as it was much better at
dependency resolution.  Also it was the recommended tool for upgrades
for this very reason. But in one release, was it Lenny?, it was
recommended to use apt for the upgrade due to a dependency loop that
would get aptitude in a fit for certain configurations.  They both share
more information via libapt(?) and so it's even supposed to be safe to
use them both without any harmful effects.  But I tend to use apt as
I've used it a long time and every time I use aptitude I cock something
up :) (better the devil you know).

There was some news recently that aptitude is back in active development
and a load of old bugs have been sorted out, so maybe there'll be a new
release soon -- who knows?


-- 
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/4f4caa1e.5060...@gmsl.co.uk

Re: Wheezy - aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get dist-upgrade

[Monsieur Louk]

I think you'll find every thing you need in the Debian doc:
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal

Quote: The difference between safe-upgrade/upgrade and full-upgrade/
dist-upgrade only appears when new versions of packages stand in different
dependency relationships from old versions of those packages. The aptitude
safe-upgrade command does not install new packages nor remove installed
packages.

HTH

Re: Wheezy - aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get dist-upgrade

[Shaun]

On 27/02/2012 02:38, Whit Hansell wrote:
 OK, Y'all.  Confusin', confusin', confusin.
 
 
 Quetjun'  Is it safe to do an apt-get dist-upgrade?  I mean it says
 it will add over a Gig of new files and stuff while removing a number of
 files.  I know that when I do an aptitude safe-upgraade I always get
 recommended files at the end of the statement and assume that those
 recommended files are a big part of this upgrade.
 
 Can anyone shed some light on this and let me know I'm most likely NOT
 going to brick my system by doing this major apt-get dist-upgrade?

The equivalent of aptitude safe-upgrade is apt-get upgrade.


-- 
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/4f4b5d2b.4040...@gmsl.co.uk

Re: Wheezy - aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get dist-upgrade

[Whit Hansell]

On 02/27/2012 04:26 AM, Monsieur Louk wrote:
I think you'll find every thing you need in the Debian doc: 
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal


Quote: The difference between |safe-upgrade|/|upgrade| and 
|full-upgrade|/|dist-upgrade| only appears when new versions of 
packages stand in different dependency relationships from old versions 
of those packages. The |aptitude safe-upgrade| command does not 
install new packages nor remove installed packages.


HTH

Merci, Monsieur,

Thanks for your reply.  I had done some googling at the debian site and 
found info on the differences as you state.  I have to admit I am not 
sure which is the best way to update/upgrade my system.  I had read a 
few years ago that aptitude was the recommended way as it supposedly 
handles dependencies better so have always used it.  But also knew 
about the statement about it not removing packages, etc.  Actually I 
have  seen it do some of that but they may be non-free and contrib.  I 
don't know.  I do know that there are files removed and new ones 
installed but then that is NOT a full package as in GNOME going from 
2.30.x to Gnome 3.x.


Appreciate the replies.  Have received one comment to personal addy that 
Gnome 3 is buggy and not to use it so am going to check around and see 
what info I can find about it before I do an apt-get safe-upgrade.


Again, thanks to you and Shaun for the help.  Much appreciated.  Regards 
and Cheers to all.  You are all a bunch of info to us all.


Whit

Re: Wheezy - aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get dist-upgrade

[Tom H]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Whit Hansell skippe...@comcast.net wrote:
 On 02/27/2012 04:26 AM, Monsieur Louk wrote:

 I think you'll find every thing you need in the Debian doc:
 http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_literal_apt_get_literal_literal_apt_cache_literal_vs_literal_aptitude_literal

 Quote: The difference between safe-upgrade/upgrade and
 full-upgrade/dist-upgrade only appears when new versions of packages
 stand in different dependency relationships from old versions of those
 packages. The aptitude safe-upgrade command does not install new packages
 nor remove installed packages.

 Thanks for your reply.  I had done some googling at the debian site and
 found info on the differences as you state.  I have to admit I am not sure
 which is the best way to update/upgrade my system.  I had read a few years
 ago that aptitude was the recommended way as it supposedly handles
 dependencies better so have always used it.  But also knew about the
 statement about it not removing packages, etc.  Actually I have  seen it do
 some of that but they may be non-free and contrib.  I don't know.  I do know
 that there are files removed and new ones installed but then that is NOT a
 full package as in GNOME going from 2.30.x to Gnome 3.x.

 Appreciate the replies.  Have received one comment to personal addy that
 Gnome 3 is buggy and not to use it so am going to check around and see what
 info I can find about it before I do an apt-get safe-upgrade.

Unless you use issue aptitude safe-upgrade --no-new-installs or have
Aptitude::CmdLine::Safe-Upgrade::No-New-Installs in
/etc/apt/apt.conf, aptitude safe-upgrade will install new packages
to resolve dependencies.

(If GNOME 3's buggy, file a bug or bugs!)


--
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/CAOdo=Sy7bX_UKSHv6ryPZLb32=mpxd_LEf0OKNoZ42D3BgY=o...@mail.gmail.com

Wheezy - aptitude safe-upgrade vs apt-get dist-upgrade

[Whit Hansell]

OK, Y'all.  Confusin', confusin', confusin.

Been safely running Wheezy on my home desktop and lovin' it even w. the 
occasional slight breaks, etc.  But a while ago, I upgraded and lost my 
admin and system submenus under the System menu at the gnome top panel.  
Really not been a big pain and thought I might get them back but so far 
nothing happened.   So, I goggled the prob' and found that my 
upgrade changed some stuff in gnome to the gnome 3(like the help files 
and removed the aformentioned submenus) and left the rest intact.  So 
the recommendation to someone at the forum I was reading was to do an 
apt-get dist-upgrade and the person did so and she got her submenus back 
but lost her panels.  I know that she went from Gnome 2.3.x to Gnome 3 
w. the upgrade and that is what I need to do too but when I did an 
apt-get update to see what all would be changed, I was astounded to see 
that a whole lot of stuff would be removed, added and more upgraded.  
I'm sitting here thinking that I keep my system up to date using 
aptitude daily w. update and then safe-upgrade and while I knew there 
were some differences between aptitude and apt-get, I had no idea there 
would be this much difference.


Quetjun'  Is it safe to do an apt-get dist-upgrade?  I mean it says 
it will add over a Gig of new files and stuff while removing a number of 
files.  I know that when I do an aptitude safe-upgraade I always get 
recommended files at the end of the statement and assume that those 
recommended files are a big part of this upgrade.


Can anyone shed some light on this and let me know I'm most likely NOT 
going to brick my system by doing this major apt-get dist-upgrade?


TIA and so appreciate your help.
Whit


--
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/4f4aecb8.3070...@comcast.net

Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' from Lenny to Squeeze crashes

[Alex]

I think I have reached a dead-end and may have to restore from partimage 
backup.


I worked through Bob's recommendations:-

   * apt-show-versions | grep -v -e uptodate -e linux-image -e keyring
   * Uninstalled / removed any packages that were out of kilter with
 the rest of the up-to-date system
   * apt-get install deborphan
   * orphaner
   * dpkg -i --force-depends
 /var/cache/apt/archives/libtext-iconv-perl_1.7-2_i386.deb
   * apt-get -f install
   * grep-status -sPackage -n -FStatus deinstall ok config-files 
 remove_conf_files
   * Edit remove_conf_files to read dpkg --purge package1 etc.
   * chmod +x remove_conf_files
   * sh remove_conf_files
   * apt-get -f install
   * orphaner - all clear
   * apt-get dist-upgrade
   * E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2)
 on dash
   * dpkg -i --force-configure-any dash_0.5.5.1-7.4_i386.deb
 o Selecting previously deselected package dash.
   (Reading database ... 353817 files and directories currently
   installed.)
   Unpacking dash (from dash_0.5.5.1-7.4_i386.deb) ...
   Adding `diversion of /bin/sh to /bin/sh.distrib by dash'
   Adding `diversion of /usr/share/man/man1/sh.1.gz to
   /usr/share/man/man1/sh.distrib.1.gz by dash'
   dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of dash:
   dash depends on dpkg (= 1.15.0); however:
   Version of dpkg on system is 1.14.31.
   dpkg: error processing dash (--install):
   dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
   Processing triggers for menu ...
   Processing triggers for man-db ...
   Errors were encountered while processing:
   dash
   * orphaner
 o deborphan: The status file is in an improper state.
   One or more packages are marked as half-installed,
   half-configured,
   unpacked, triggers-awaited or triggers-pending. Exiting.
   deborphan returned with error.
   * apt-get -f install
 o E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration
   (1) on dash
   + Based on the error lines above:-
 # dash depends on dpkg (= 1.15.0); however:
   Version of dpkg on system is 1.14.31.
   dpkg: error processing dash (--install):
   dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
   + I figured that I would try to force the installation
 of dpkg_1.15.8.11_i386.deb
   * apt-get -f install dpkg_1.15.8.11_i386.deb
   * apt-get -f install
   * apt-get dist-upgrade   # After much activity, screeds of screen
 scrolling and multiple DVD changes - bummer!^#^#*@*^
 o Errors were encountered while processing:

/media/cdrom0//pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
gnome-menus
   E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
   * dpkg -i --force-depends
 
/media/cdrom0/pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
 o Preparing to replace gnome-screensaver 2.22.2-2 (using
   .../gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb) ...
   /var/lib/dpkg/info/gnome-screensaver.prerm: 6:
   gconf-schemas: not found
   dpkg: warning: subprocess old pre-removal script returned
   error exit status 127
   dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...
   dpkg: error processing
   
/media/cdrom0/pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
   (--install):
there is no script in the new version of the package -
   giving up
   Errors were encountered while processing:

/media/cdrom0/pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
   * apt-get -f install
 o Preparing to replace gnome-screensaver 2.22.2-2 (using
   .../gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb) ...
   /var/lib/dpkg/info/gnome-screensaver.prerm: 6:
   gconf-schemas: not found
   dpkg: warning: subprocess old pre-removal script returned
   error exit status 127
   dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...
   dpkg: error processing
   
/media/apt//pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
   (--unpack):
there is no script in the new version of the package -
   giving up
   configured to not write apport reports
   Errors were encountered while processing:

/media/apt//pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
   E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
   * orphaner
 o deborphan: The status file is in an improper state.
   One or more packages are marked as half-installed,
   half

Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' from Lenny to Squeeze crashes

[Bob Proulx]

Alex wrote:
 I think I have reached a dead-end and may have to restore from
 partimage backup.

Sigh.  Oh well.  On the bright side at least you have a full backup. :-)

 I worked through Bob's recommendations:-

:-)

* apt-get dist-upgrade
* E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2)
  on dash

Note how the package with the problem has moved.  libtext-iconv-perl
before and dash now.  That movement of the problem seems to be
symptomatic of this type of apt failure.

Before doing a dist-upgrade you should do an upgrade first.  This is
recommended in the upgrade notes:

  
http://www.debian.org/releases/squeeze/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#minimal-upgrade

* dpkg -i --force-configure-any dash_0.5.5.1-7.4_i386.deb
 ...
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of dash:
dash depends on dpkg (= 1.15.0); however:
Version of dpkg on system is 1.14.31.

In past releases it was recommended to upgrade dpkg and apt first.  I
don't see that recommendation now but that would probably help here.

+ I figured that I would try to force the installation
  of dpkg_1.15.8.11_i386.deb

That would be what I would have tried too.

* apt-get -f install dpkg_1.15.8.11_i386.deb

Did that upgrade dpkg successfully?

* apt-get -f install
* apt-get dist-upgrade   # After much activity, screeds of screen
  scrolling and multiple DVD changes - bummer!^#^#*@*^

If you have a network connection then you can avoid needing to change
physical media.  :-)

  o Errors were encountered while processing:
 
 /media/cdrom0//pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
 gnome-menus
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

But it didn't give enough information to know why it failed.  That's
poor form on dpkg's part.

* dpkg -i --force-depends
  
 /media/cdrom0/pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
  o Preparing to replace gnome-screensaver 2.22.2-2 (using
.../gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb) ...
/var/lib/dpkg/info/gnome-screensaver.prerm: 6:
gconf-schemas: not found
dpkg: warning: subprocess old pre-removal script returned
error exit status 127
dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...
dpkg: error processing

 /media/cdrom0/pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb
(--install):
 there is no script in the new version of the package -
giving up
Errors were encountered while processing:
 
 /media/cdrom0/pool/main/g/gnome-screensaver/gnome-screensaver_2.30.0-2squeeze1_i386.deb

The /var/lib/dpkg/info/gnome-screensaver.prerm script can be inspected
and even modified.  In some cases it has been necessary to edit prerm
scripts to avoid errors.  Putting an 'exit 0' at the top should get
you past that particular error.  The new version of the package
doesn't include such a script.  The old version was tyring to
unregister gconf schemas.  (I never liked gconf.)

The gconf-schemas command is part of the gconf2 package.  It in the
Depends: list for many packages.  It is strange that the command is
not available to you since almost certainly the package had to have
been installed.

  dpkg -l gconf2

  o Long list of package dependencies leading to the following
result:-
+ N: Ignoring file 'apt-build' in directory
  '/etc/apt/sources.list.d/' as it has no filename extension
  N: Ignoring file 'winff.list.save' in directory
  '/etc/apt/sources.list.d/' as it has an invalid
  filename extension

There are some clues there.  Do you have rogue files in
/etc/apt/sources.list.d that are leading things astray?  Normally that
directory is empty.  But Trinity (KDE 3.5, not in Debian but many
people use it) leaves files there.  It is one of my complaints about
how it is packaged.  I don't know what else would be there but the
above says there is something there and it probably needs to be
removed from there.

 Dead-end (or realisation of 'endless loop') reached!
 
 Any good suggestions please?

Clean out /etc/apt/sources.list.d/* of any lint there.  Look at it
first and see if what is there may be the source of your problems.

Run apt-get upgrade first before dist-upgrade.

Review the official upgrade notes and see if we missed anything.

  http://www.debian.org/releases/squeeze/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html

 Unless any good suggestions are forth-coming, I will be forced to
 restore from partimage backup, but this time I will clean up the
 system as per Bob's previous suggestions BEFORE I start with the
 update / upgrade (per method in my original request for assistance).

Since

'apt-get dist-upgrade' from Lenny to Squeeze crashes

[Alex]

Hi,

'apt-get dist-upgrade' from Lenny (up to date as of 04 Spet. 2011) to 
Squeeze crashes with the following error:-


   E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2) on
   libtext-iconv-perl


Procedure used during upgrade to date:-

   1) Downloaded and burned all .iso images from
   http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.2.1/i386/iso-dvd/ to DVD.
   2) Using Synaptic, all DVDs the added to the repository using 'Add
   CDROM', and all other repositories disabled (commemnted out).
   3) Reboot into single-user mode using root password.
   4) apt-cdrom add on all DVD's
   5) apt-get update
   6) apt-get upgrade
   7) apt-get install linux-image-2.6.32-5-openvz-686
   8) apt-get install udev
   9) Reboot into single-user mode using root password.
   10) apt-get dist-upgrade
   11) E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2)
   on libtext-iconv-perl
   12) Search web for this error message and find that I have to
   reinstall libc6 and libc6-i686
   13) Reboot into single-user mode using root password.
   14) apt-get install --reinstall libc6 libc6-i686
   15) apt-get dist-upgrade
   16) E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2)
   on libtext-iconv-perl
   17) apt-get install --reinstall libc6 libc6-i686
   18) apt-get dist-upgrade
   19) E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2)
   on libtext-iconv-perl
   20) Give up and look for Ghostbusters?!?!?!   ;-)


Please help, as I would really like to upgrade to a full version of squeeze.

Thanking you in anticipation

Alex

Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' from Lenny to Squeeze crashes

[Bob Proulx]

Alex wrote:
 'apt-get dist-upgrade' from Lenny (up to date as of 04 Spet. 2011)

Too late now but before upgrading I think it is advisable to look at
the output of apt-show-versions and clean up packages that are no
longer available.  Even though you were fully up to date with Lenny
there were probably other packages installed that have become obsolete
and should be removed.  I think the problem is with these extra
packages.

  $ apt-show-versions | grep -v -e uptodate

Now that you have a mixed Lenny Squeeze system looking at this output
may be more difficult.  You will have to improvise.

 to Squeeze crashes with the following error:-
 
E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2) on 
 libtext-iconv-perl

I think you have extra packages that have been installed previously
but are no longer in the archive and among the set there are circular
dependencies.  These circular dependencies confuse APT and cause it to
fail.

 Procedure used during upgrade to date:-

1) Downloaded and burned all .iso images from
http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/6.0.2.1/i386/iso-dvd/ to DVD.
2) Using Synaptic, all DVDs the added to the repository using 'Add
CDROM', and all other repositories disabled (commemnted out).

Why?  That seems very painful to me and uses a lot of bandwidth.  Why
not download just the needed packages with apt-get instead of
downloading *all* available packages?  It is not only easier on you
but it is also easier on the archive mirrors.  Any single machine and
associated site will only use a small fraction of all available
packages.

 ...good tracking history deleted...

11) E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2) on 
 libtext-iconv-perl
12) Search web for this error message and find that I have to reinstall 
 libc6 and libc6-i686

I think not when the problem is reported with libtext-iconv-perl.  You
probably found hits on reports of error with libc6.

13) Reboot into single-user mode using root password.
14) apt-get install --reinstall libc6 libc6-i686

Didn't hurt but I think didn't do anything helpful either.

15) apt-get dist-upgrade
16) E: Internal Error, Could not perform immediate configuration (2) on 
 libtext-iconv-perl

Usually that error means a circular dependency loop.  You need to find
the problem and break the loop.  Start by removing lint that has
accumulated.  If you are lucky then cleaning that up will be enough.

I don't know why you are insisting to use DVDs for this upgrade.  It
makes no sense to me and I think just setting yourself up for a more
painful upgrade.

  $ apt-show-versions | grep -v -e uptodate -e linux-image -e keyring

Review that and remove the lint that has collected.

  # dpkg --remove somepackage

Also using deborphan and orphaner can be useful for cleaning.

  # apt-get install deborphan
  # orphaner

You can force an installation of a particular package.  These packages
are downloaded to /var/cache/apt/archives.  This means that you can
fairly easily use that cache location and use dpkg to install.

  # dpkg -i --force-depends /var/cache/apt/archives/somepackage.deb

For example because your package with the problem is
libtext-iconv-perl you could for it to be the only package installed
with dpkg directly:

  # dpkg -i --force-depends 
/var/cache/apt/archives/libtext-iconv-perl_1.7-2_i386.deb
  # apt-get -f install

Then use 'apt-get -f install' to fix the newly introduced dependency
problems.

Other cleaning I recommend before an upgrade is to purge packages that
have been removed but have configuration files remaining behind.
Upgrades are a great time to clean up long gone packages that have
conffiles remaining behind that you will never use again.  Back up
anything that you wish to store long term if there is something you
have configured and think you might want to refer to again.  Remember
that a --purge deletes conffiles from /etc that are otherwise not
removed.

  $ dpkg -l | grep ^rc
  # dpkg --purge somepackage

The more styling way to do 'dpkg -l | grep ^rc' is to use grep-status
and have it print out only package names.  This is useful for more
command line and script automation.  More obscure perhaps but very
powerful and more precise output.

  $ grep-status -sPackage -n -FStatus deinstall ok config-files

Lastly here is a complication that makes this Debian upgrade more
difficult than most.  Debian migrates to a dependency based boot
system with Squeeze.  But it can only do this if all /etc/init.d/*
files have LSB headers.  If you don't want this migration then any
error in this will cause that part of the upgrade to stop.  You will
have a good Squeeze system but without dependency based booting.  That
is fine.  Many people consider that a feature.  But if you want to be
like a freshly installed system then you will want it.  This means
cleaning /etc/init.d/ of any executable script (e.g. mode a+x) that
does not have LSB headers.  The insserv program needs

Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' from Lenny to Squeeze crashes

[Alex]

Hi Bob,

Thank you very much for the prompt and very comprehensive reply.

There are some questions and comments arising, please:-

   * Since I am working from a partimage backup of the Debian system
 partition (S.O.E. that can be transferred from one machine to
 another in case of emergency), it is not a problem to restore that
 and start again, if you think that would be the best course and
 then check the extra packages, circular dependencies and lint
 etc..  I presume that all that would be done BEFORE adding the
 DVD's to /etc/apt/sources.list.
   * The full distro. set, is as a result of old habits die hard  ;-) :-
 o  From my old days in the industry working on DEC PDP's
   (RSX/RT11/RSTS)  VAX's (VMS) and even the bad old days when
   Novell Netware came on 5.15 'floppy disks' - you just did
   NOT start doing ANYTHING to the OS until you had the full
   distro in your hand, in front of the machine
 o  From days when we did not have any internet connectivity at
   home
 o Proprietary Ethernet controllers that do not allow network
   connectivity when SOE's from one machine are partimage
   restored to new hardware

Lastly, while having spent many fruitful and prosperous years in the 
industry, times and circumstances change, and I am now just a 'user of 
infotech' rather than a directly interested party.  For this reason, I 
have not kept up with this LSB and 'dependency based boot system' stuff. 

I have only recently started to get my head around all the /dev/etc.etc. 
naming conventions. I am not sure if this is part of this 'dependency 
based boot system', but when I get told that I have to have something 
that looks like a hexadecimal version of 
'nameinternationaladdresspostcodeandinternationalphonenumber' as my NEW 
device naming convention, I must admit that the old acronym phobia 
that forced me from the industry in the end, starts to rear its ugly 
head again and the questions start to arise why do we want to make life 
MORE complicated and LESS?.  At that point  just say NO!  Please just 
give me the /dev/etc.etc. naming convention that I have just managed to 
get my head around.


Any chance of a link to a concise primer / idiots guide to LSB and  
'dependency based boot system'?


Thank you once again for the prompt and very comprehensive reply.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Regards

Alex

Re: 'apt-get dist-upgrade' from Lenny to Squeeze crashes

[Bob Proulx]

Alex wrote:
* Since I am working from a partimage backup of the Debian system
  partition (S.O.E. that can be transferred from one machine to
  another in case of emergency), it is not a problem to restore that
  and start again, if you think that would be the best course and
  then check the extra packages, circular dependencies and lint
  etc..  I presume that all that would be done BEFORE adding the
  DVD's to /etc/apt/sources.list.

Hmm...  Very interesting!  I don't know but yes that /might/ be
easiest.  Because then you would have a completely working Lenny
system and can resolve the issues there before the upgrade.  But at
the same time if I were doing it I would probably just work the
current problem and push through it.  If the problem is caused by
obsolete packages left behind then I think it can be solved through
judicious application of force using 'dpkg --force-depends' and
'apt-get -f install'.  But restoring to the checkpoint before is a
good idea!  You will have to be the judge of things since you are
handling the equipment.  I would hit it for a bit first before giving
up and going back to the checkpoint.

* The full distro. set, is as a result of old habits die hard  ;-) :-
  o  From my old days in the industry working on DEC PDP's
(RSX/RT11/RSTS)  VAX's (VMS) and even the bad old days when
Novell Netware came on 5.15 'floppy disks' - you just did
NOT start doing ANYTHING to the OS until you had the full
distro in your hand, in front of the machine

Ah...  Lots of memories there.  But in those days one machine was all
that was available.  Screw it up and you were really in a world of
hurt.  But these days you probably have more than one computer
available to you.  So these days if you have a serious problem you can
use the other one to help with the recovery.

  o  From days when we did not have any internet connectivity at
home

These days I work out of my home and have better connectivity than the
folks at big box corporations.  :-)

  o Proprietary Ethernet controllers that do not allow network
connectivity when SOE's from one machine are partimage
restored to new hardware

NICs not working due to missing kernel firmware blobs?  You could take
an inventory of all possible network cards on your site and add into
your standard image all of the needed combinations of firmware blobs.
That won't help when you encounter a new card for the first time.  But
it will work among the set that have become known.

  apt-cache search firmware | grep ^firmware

 Lastly, while having spent many fruitful and prosperous years in the
 industry, times and circumstances change, and I am now just a 'user
 of infotech' rather than a directly interested party.  For this
 reason, I have not kept up with this LSB and 'dependency based boot
 system' stuff.

The LSB headers for /etc/init.d scripts have been around for a while
but not required in Debian previously.  In the Squeeze 6.0 release
they are now required for the dependency based booting.  Starting with
Squeeze Debian users are going to be hitting this more and more.
However the fallback for the upgrade is that the system continues to
use the hard coded start order numbers.  Some people who like the
previous hard coded ordering system feel that is the way it should
continue.  So for them it is a win even if for others it is a loss.

The problems with the hard coded numbers is that when there are
circular dependencies it allows maintainers to point fingers at other
people.  They want other packages to change instead of their package.
Three maintainers with three packages all pointing fingers at the
person to their side and no one owning up to taking responsibility to
actually fixing the problem.  That isn't helpful.  I like the
dependency based boot ordering because you define dependency
relationships and circular dependencies are flagged as problems.  You
can't dodge the issue anymore.  The boot sequence is getting cleaned
up.  However there is still more work to be done and there are still
problems to be fixed in the current set of packages in Debian.

The usual problem is bootstrapping the networking system.  The problem
usually involves a combination of networking and syslog and DNS.
Everything wants networking.  Everything wants logging.  Everything
wants DNS.  But there is a bootstrapping problem among the core system
services.  DNS can't start until the networking is online.  People
often want to log remotely over the network.  People often want to use
hostnames instead of IP addresses.  You can how easily someone can
create a dependency loop there.

With the hard coded number boot ordering trying to sort those out in
the distribution packages was impossible.  But the local admin could
adjust the ordering and usually make it work.  But it wasn't pretty.
Now with the stated dependencies you can always file a 

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 08 May 2011 13:02:18 -0600, Paul E Condon wrote:

 On 20110508_095510, Camaleón wrote:

(...)

  Whether one of these packages is installed by default depends on how
  you installed that particular machine (example: it might not be
  installed in expert mode since AFAIR you get a specific question
  about which kernel package to install).
 
 I always use the expert installer so that can be the reason I didn't
 have the meta-package installed by default.
 
 
 I always use the expert installer and I always have the meta-package
 installed, Expert mode, for me, always presents a screen for selection
 of a kernel package with the meta-package highlighted. 

Thanks for pointing this, I'll check out the next time I make an 
install :-)

This installation was done over 6 (or more) months ago using a squeeze 
weekly snapshot so maybe something has changed since that. I say this 
because I've also noticed that in all of the systems where I have lenny 
installed there is no kernel meta-package at all, just the kernel package 
itself :-?

 But I also always use aptitude, and I'm not yet convinced that aptitude
 and apt-get always do the same thing.

In this case both tools were showing consistent results.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
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/pan.2011.05.09.11.45...@gmail.com

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Andrei Popescu]

On Sb, 07 mai 11, 16:18:53, Camaleón wrote:
 Hello,
 
 I'm running wheezy and it's since weeks that I started wondering when a 
 new kernel will come to testing :-)
 
 root@debian:~# cat /etc/issue
 Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid \n \l
 
 test@debian:~$ uname -r
 2.6.32-5-686
 
 Now (by purely chance) I realized that there is indeed a new kernel 
 available in the repositories so that this means it was me making some 
 kind of mistake. 

You need either the package linux-image-flavour or 
linux-image-2.6-flavour and a new kernel will be installed as soon as 
the Kernel Team updates the dependencies of these packages.

Whether one of these packages is installed by default depends on how you 
installed that particular machine (example: it might not be installed in 
expert mode since AFAIR you get a specific question about which kernel 
package to install).

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:21:07 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:

 On Sb, 07 mai 11, 16:18:53, Camaleón wrote:

 I'm running wheezy and it's since weeks that I started wondering when a
 new kernel will come to testing :-)
 
 root@debian:~# cat /etc/issue
 Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid \n \l
 
 test@debian:~$ uname -r
 2.6.32-5-686
 
 Now (by purely chance) I realized that there is indeed a new kernel
 available in the repositories so that this means it was me making some
 kind of mistake.
 
 You need either the package linux-image-flavour or
 linux-image-2.6-flavour and a new kernel will be installed as soon as
 the Kernel Team updates the dependencies of these packages.

Do I need either or do I need both? :-)

Curious is that, as I said before, it was installed it:

dpkg test@debian:~$ dpkg -l | grep linux-image
ii  linux-image-2.6.32-5-686  2.6.32-31 Linux 
2.6.32 for modern PCs

But the updated kernel was not showing to me as available until I manually 
pulled the meta-package ;-(

 Whether one of these packages is installed by default depends on how you
 installed that particular machine (example: it might not be installed in
 expert mode since AFAIR you get a specific question about which kernel
 package to install).

I always use the expert installer so that can be the reason I didn't have 
the meta-package installed by default.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
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/pan.2011.05.08.09.55...@gmail.com

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[KS]

On 07/05/11 09:36 PM, KS wrote:
 
 However, I did an update just around the time I saw the reply and apt is
 not able to find the 2.6.38-2-686-bigmem (for for that matter 2.6.38-2)
 either! It exists on packages.debian.org though.
 

Must have been an issue with the mirrors as apt was getting hash sum
mismatch last night. The packages were there in the list in the morning.

KS


-- 
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/4dc6b3eb.80...@fastmail.fm

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Andrei Popescu]

On Du, 08 mai 11, 09:55:10, Camaleón wrote:
  
  You need either the package linux-image-flavour or
  linux-image-2.6-flavour and a new kernel will be installed as soon as
  the Kernel Team updates the dependencies of these packages.
 
 Do I need either or do I need both? :-)

I did say either, unless you expect to run any non-2.6 Linux kernel 
soon ;)
 
 Curious is that, as I said before, it was installed it:
 
 dpkg test@debian:~$ dpkg -l | grep linux-image
 ii  linux-image-2.6.32-5-686  2.6.32-31 Linux 
 2.6.32 for modern PCs
 
 But the updated kernel was not showing to me as available until I manually 
 pulled the meta-package ;-(

I don't understand what you mean here, could you please rephrase a bit?

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 08 May 2011 19:49:06 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:

 On Du, 08 mai 11, 09:55:10, Camaleón wrote:

 Curious is that, as I said before, it was installed it:
 
 dpkg test@debian:~$ dpkg -l | grep linux-image ii 
 linux-image-2.6.32-5-686  2.6.32-31 Linux
 2.6.32 for modern PCs
 
 But the updated kernel was not showing to me as available until I
 manually pulled the meta-package ;-(
 
 I don't understand what you mean here, could you please rephrase a bit?

Sure. I mean I already had the linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 package 
installed but apt-get dist-upgrade did not offer the latest version 
available (linux-image-2.6.38-2-686) so I had to manually install it.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
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/pan.2011.05.08.17.13...@gmail.com

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

In pan.2011.05.08.09.55...@gmail.com, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:21:07 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
 On Sb, 07 mai 11, 16:18:53, Camaleón wrote:
 I'm running wheezy and it's since weeks that I started wondering when a
 new kernel will come to testing :-)
 
 Now (by purely chance) I realized that there is indeed a new kernel
 available in the repositories so that this means it was me making some
 kind of mistake.
 
 You need either the package linux-image-flavour or
 linux-image-2.6-flavour and a new kernel will be installed as soon as
 the Kernel Team updates the dependencies of these packages.

Do I need either or do I need both? :-)

Curious is that, as I said before, it was installed it:

dpkg test@debian:~$ dpkg -l | grep linux-image
ii  linux-image-2.6.32-5-686  2.6.32-31 Linux
2.6.32 for modern PCs

That's not the package Camaleón is talking about.  They mean linux-
image-2.6-686 or linux-image-686.

Dpkg doesn't allow two versions on the same package (name) to be installed at 
the same time.  So, when multiple versions of an upstream package support co-
installation (e.g. two ABI versions of a library), some part of the version is 
pulled into the package name.  So, linux-image-2.6.32-5.686 is not just a 
different version, but also a different package name from linux-
image-2.5.38-2-686.

When APT is doing a safe-upgrade or dist-upgrade it looks to install newer 
versions of the packages (names) that are already installed.  So, linux-
image-2.6.32-5-686 will never be upgraded to linux-image-2.6.38-2-686.

Instead this is handled through a specific type of meta-package.  linux-
image-2.6-686 version 2.6.32-5 will depend on linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 
(any version) but linux-image-2.6-686 version 2.6.38-2 will depend on 
linux-image-2.6.38-2-686 (any version).  This is something APT's safe-
upgrade and dist-upgrade can handle, although they could be sometimes over-
aggressive with auto-removal so there's a default configuration to prevent 
that behavior.

So, install linux-image-2.6-686 and you should be fine for a little while.

NB: In the name of package files (e.g. linux-image-686_2.6.32-5.deb), the 
name occurs first and is them separated from the version by an underscore 
('_').  It is perfectly legal for things that look like version numbers to 
occur in the package name and vice-versa.
-- 
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: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Andrei Popescu]

On Du, 08 mai 11, 17:13:38, Camaleón wrote:
 
 Sure. I mean I already had the linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 package 
 installed but apt-get dist-upgrade did not offer the latest version 
 available (linux-image-2.6.38-2-686) so I had to manually install it.

(so I did understand it right after all)

But an older kernel image can not depend on a newer one (how would it 
know its future version?), that's why the meta-packages exist ;)

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

In 201105081231.04151@iguanasuicide.net, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In pan.2011.05.08.09.55...@gmail.com, Camaleón wrote:
On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:21:07 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
 You need either the package linux-image-flavour or
 linux-image-2.6-flavour and a new kernel will be installed as soon as
 the Kernel Team updates the dependencies of these packages.

Do I need either or do I need both? :-)

Curious is that, as I said before, it was installed it:

dpkg test@debian:~$ dpkg -l | grep linux-image
ii  linux-image-2.6.32-5-686  2.6.32-31 Linux
2.6.32 for modern PCs

That's not the package Camaleón is talking about.  They mean linux-
image-2.6-686 or linux-image-686.

I evidently lost the ability to read email quote marks last night. ;)

s/Camaleón/Andrei/g in my text above.
-- 
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: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Dom]

On 08/05/11 18:13, Camaleón wrote:

On Sun, 08 May 2011 19:49:06 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:


On Du, 08 mai 11, 09:55:10, Camaleón wrote:



Curious is that, as I said before, it was installed it:

dpkg test@debian:~$ dpkg -l | grep linux-image ii
linux-image-2.6.32-5-686  2.6.32-31 Linux
2.6.32 for modern PCs

But the updated kernel was not showing to me as available until I
manually pulled the meta-package ;-(


I don't understand what you mean here, could you please rephrase a bit?


Sure. I mean I already had the linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 package
installed but apt-get dist-upgrade did not offer the latest version
available (linux-image-2.6.38-2-686) so I had to manually install it.


I think this is mostly because the different kernel versions are 
completely different packages, rather than a new version of the same 
package. This prevents your kernel getting upgraded if you don't wish it 
to. If you do wish to receive new kernels, then you install one of the 
meta-packages.


I had noticed that expert install (which I normally use) gives the 
option of a specific kernel, or the meta-package, but never gave that 
much thought before. I frequently change the kernel after installation, 
or compile a custom one for specific machines.


--
Dom


--
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/4dc6d8e0.3030...@rpdom.net

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Camaleón]

On Sun, 08 May 2011 20:33:22 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:

 On Du, 08 mai 11, 17:13:38, Camaleón wrote:
 
 Sure. I mean I already had the linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 package
 installed but apt-get dist-upgrade did not offer the latest version
 available (linux-image-2.6.38-2-686) so I had to manually install it.
 
 (so I did understand it right after all)
 
 But an older kernel image can not depend on a newer one (how would it
 know its future version?), that's why the meta-packages exist ;)

Hum... then as Boyd also said (@Boyd, thanks for the explanation), can we 
conclude that _only_ a kernel meta-package will be able to perform the 
automatic upgrade to the latest version available?

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
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/pan.2011.05.08.17.56...@gmail.com

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Paul E Condon]

On 20110508_095510, Camaleón wrote:
 On Sun, 08 May 2011 11:21:07 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
 
  On Sb, 07 mai 11, 16:18:53, Camaleón wrote:
 
  I'm running wheezy and it's since weeks that I started wondering when a
  new kernel will come to testing :-)
  
  root@debian:~# cat /etc/issue
  Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid \n \l
  
  test@debian:~$ uname -r
  2.6.32-5-686
  
  Now (by purely chance) I realized that there is indeed a new kernel
  available in the repositories so that this means it was me making some
  kind of mistake.
  
  You need either the package linux-image-flavour or
  linux-image-2.6-flavour and a new kernel will be installed as soon as
  the Kernel Team updates the dependencies of these packages.
 
 Do I need either or do I need both? :-)
 
 Curious is that, as I said before, it was installed it:
 
 dpkg test@debian:~$ dpkg -l | grep linux-image
 ii  linux-image-2.6.32-5-686  2.6.32-31 Linux 
 2.6.32 for modern PCs
 
 But the updated kernel was not showing to me as available until I manually 
 pulled the meta-package ;-(
 
  Whether one of these packages is installed by default depends on how you
  installed that particular machine (example: it might not be installed in
  expert mode since AFAIR you get a specific question about which kernel
  package to install).
 
 I always use the expert installer so that can be the reason I didn't have 
 the meta-package installed by default.

Camaleón,

I always use the expert installer and I always have the meta-package
installed, Expert mode, for me, always presents a screen for selection
of a kernel package with the meta-package highlighted. But I also 
always use aptitude, and I'm not yet convinced that aptitude and apt-get
always do the same thing.

HTH
-- 
Paul E Condon   
pecon...@mesanetworks.net


-- 
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/20110508190218.gf17...@big.lan.gnu

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Andrei Popescu]

On Du, 08 mai 11, 17:56:41, Camaleón wrote:
 
 Hum... then as Boyd also said (@Boyd, thanks for the explanation), can we 
 conclude that _only_ a kernel meta-package will be able to perform the 
 automatic upgrade to the latest version available?

Well, only is a bit strong here, but given the current features and 
limitations of APT the answer is yes ;)

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Camaleón]

Hello,

I'm running wheezy and it's since weeks that I started wondering when a 
new kernel will come to testing :-)

root@debian:~# cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid \n \l

test@debian:~$ uname -r
2.6.32-5-686

Now (by purely chance) I realized that there is indeed a new kernel 
available in the repositories so that this means it was me making some 
kind of mistake. 

root@debian:~# apt-cache search linux-image
linux-headers-2.6.38-2-486 - Header files for Linux 2.6.38-2-486
linux-headers-2.6.38-2-686 - Header files for Linux 2.6.38-2-686
linux-headers-2.6.38-2-686-bigmem - Header files for Linux 2.6.38-2-686-bigmem
linux-headers-2.6.38-2-amd64 - Header files for Linux 2.6.38-2-amd64
linux-image-2.6.38-2-486 - Linux 2.6.38 for old PCs
linux-image-2.6.38-2-686 - Linux 2.6.38 for modern PCs
linux-image-2.6.38-2-686-bigmem - Linux 2.6.38 for PCs with 4GB+ RAM
linux-image-2.6.38-2-686-bigmem-dbg - Debugging infos for Linux 
2.6.38-2-686-bigmem
linux-image-2.6.38-2-amd64 - Linux 2.6.38 for 64-bit PCs
linux-image-2.6-486 - Linux 2.6 for old PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-2.6-686 - Linux 2.6 for modern PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-2.6-686-bigmem - Linux 2.6 for PCs with 4GB+ RAM (meta-package)
linux-image-2.6-amd64 - Linux 2.6 for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-486 - Linux for old PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-686 - Linux for modern PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-686-bigmem - Linux for PCs with 4GB+ RAM (meta-package)
linux-image-amd64 - Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
alsa-base - Archivos de configuración del controlador de ALSA
linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 - Linux 2.6.32 for modern PCs
linux-headers-2.6.32-5-686 - Header files for Linux 2.6.32-5-686

I use to upgrade the machine with this command:

apt-get update  apt-get -V dist-upgrade

Should I have been using another one that automatically triggered the new 
kernel? Or is that kernel needs to be manually pulled? :-?

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
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/pan.2011.05.07.16.18...@gmail.com

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[AG]

On 07/05/11 17:18, Camaleón wrote:

Hello,

I'm running wheezy and it's since weeks that I started wondering when a
new kernel will come to testing :-)



snip



I use to upgrade the machine with this command:

apt-get update  apt-get -V dist-upgrade

Should I have been using another one that automatically triggered the new
kernel? Or is that kernel needs to be manually pulled? :-?



Camaleón

FWIW, I only ever use either the Update Manager or aptitude 
safe-upgrade and it pulls in the kernel and headers as well as far as I 
can ascertain.



--
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/4dc57241.5070...@gmail.com

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[godo]

On 2011-05-07 18:18, Camaleón wrote:

Hello,

I'm running wheezy and it's since weeks that I started wondering when a
new kernel will come to testing :-)

root@debian:~# cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid \n \l

test@debian:~$ uname -r
2.6.32-5-686

Now (by purely chance) I realized that there is indeed a new kernel
available in the repositories so that this means it was me making some
kind of mistake.

root@debian:~# apt-cache search linux-image
linux-headers-2.6.38-2-486 - Header files for Linux 2.6.38-2-486
linux-headers-2.6.38-2-686 - Header files for Linux 2.6.38-2-686
linux-headers-2.6.38-2-686-bigmem - Header files for Linux 2.6.38-2-686-bigmem
linux-headers-2.6.38-2-amd64 - Header files for Linux 2.6.38-2-amd64
linux-image-2.6.38-2-486 - Linux 2.6.38 for old PCs
linux-image-2.6.38-2-686 - Linux 2.6.38 for modern PCs
linux-image-2.6.38-2-686-bigmem - Linux 2.6.38 for PCs with 4GB+ RAM
linux-image-2.6.38-2-686-bigmem-dbg - Debugging infos for Linux 
2.6.38-2-686-bigmem
linux-image-2.6.38-2-amd64 - Linux 2.6.38 for 64-bit PCs
linux-image-2.6-486 - Linux 2.6 for old PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-2.6-686 - Linux 2.6 for modern PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-2.6-686-bigmem - Linux 2.6 for PCs with 4GB+ RAM (meta-package)
linux-image-2.6-amd64 - Linux 2.6 for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-486 - Linux for old PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-686 - Linux for modern PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-686-bigmem - Linux for PCs with 4GB+ RAM (meta-package)
linux-image-amd64 - Linux for 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
alsa-base - Archivos de configuración del controlador de ALSA
linux-image-2.6.32-5-686 - Linux 2.6.32 for modern PCs
linux-headers-2.6.32-5-686 - Header files for Linux 2.6.32-5-686

I use to upgrade the machine with this command:

apt-get update  apt-get -V dist-upgrade

Should I have been using another one that automatically triggered the new
kernel? Or is that kernel needs to be manually pulled? :-?

Greetings,


Hi,
whenever I power on my boxes firs I go in single user mod and apt-get 
update   apt-get dist-upgrade like you.

On my Wheezy box:
$ uname -r
2.6.38-2-686

I really doubt that I got it just because I was in single-user.
Maybe your box was just tired and made a small mistake? :-)

--
Bye,
Goran Dobosevic
Hrvatski: www.dobosevic.com
 English: www.dobosevic.com/en/
Registered Linux User #503414


--
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/4dc578ac.9000...@dobosevic.com

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Camaleón]

On Sat, 07 May 2011 17:24:33 +0100, AG wrote:

 On 07/05/11 17:18, Camaleón wrote:

 I use to upgrade the machine with this command:

 apt-get update  apt-get -V dist-upgrade

 Should I have been using another one that automatically triggered the
 new kernel? Or is that kernel needs to be manually pulled? :-?


 
 FWIW, I only ever use either the Update Manager or aptitude
 safe-upgrade and it pulls in the kernel and headers as well as far as I
 can ascertain.

I get the same:

root@debian:~# aptitude safe-upgrade
No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used.

Nothing to do? :-?

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
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/pan.2011.05.07.16.59...@gmail.com

Re: Does apt-get dist-upgrade upgrade the kernel?

[Dom]

On 07/05/11 17:18, Camaleón wrote:

Hello,

I'm running wheezy and it's since weeks that I started wondering when a
new kernel will come to testing :-)

root@debian:~# cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU/Linux wheezy/sid \n \l

test@debian:~$ uname -r
2.6.32-5-686

Now (by purely chance) I realized that there is indeed a new kernel
available in the repositories so that this means it was me making some
kind of mistake.

root@debian:~# apt-cache search linux-image

(snip list of packages)

linux-image-2.6-686 - Linux 2.6 for modern PCs (meta-package)
linux-image-686 - Linux for modern PCs (meta-package)

I use to upgrade the machine with this command:

apt-get update  apt-get -V dist-upgrade

Should I have been using another one that automatically triggered the new
kernel? Or is that kernel needs to be manually pulled? :-?


Do you have the linux-image-686 package installed? (I see you're using 
the 686 version) This package is a dummy package that depends on the 
latest kernel, currently linux-image-2.6.38-2-686. If you do, then 
apt-get dist-upgrade will install the new kernel when available (but it 
won't remove your old kernel).


Regards

--
Dom


--
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/4dc57a89.8070...@rpdom.net