Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Richard Thornton wrote: > OpenBSD 5.0-current (GENERIC) #65: Thu Nov 3 00:58:36 MDT 2011 > PKG_PATH=ftp://openbsd.mirror.frontiernet.net/pub/OpenBSD/5.0/packages/sparc6 4/ You're trying to use -stable packages on a -current system? Re-install the OS, and don't use the snapshots directory to get your files. -B
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
OpenBSD 5.0-current (GENERIC) #65: Thu Nov 3 00:58:36 MDT 2011
Welcome to OpenBSD: The proactively secure Unix-like operating system.
Please use the sendbug(1) utility to report bugs in the system.
Before reporting a bug, please try to reproduce it with the latest
version of the code. With bug reports, please try to ensure that
enough information to reproduce the problem is enclosed, and if a
known fix for it exists, include that as well.
$
$
$
$ cat rprofile.txt
# $OpenBSD: dot.profile,v 1.9 2010/12/13 12:54:31 millert Exp $
#
# sh/ksh initialization
PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin
export PATH
: ${HOME='/root'}
export HOME
PKG_PATH=
ftp://openbsd.mirror.frontiernet.net/pub/OpenBSD/5.0/packages/sparc64/
export PKG_PATH
umask 022
case "$-" in
*i*)# interactive shell
if [ -x /usr/bin/tset ]; then
if [ X"$XTERM_VERSION" = X"" ]; then
eval `/usr/bin/tset -sQ '-munknown:?vt220' $TERM`
else
eval `/usr/bin/tset -IsQ '-munknown:?vt220' $TERM`
fi
fi
;;
esac
$login as: rthornto
rthornto@68.197.72.59's password:
OpenBSD 5.0-current (GENERIC) #65: Thu Nov 3 00:58:36 MDT 2011
Welcome to OpenBSD: The proactively secure Unix-like operating system.
Please use the sendbug(1) utility to report bugs in the system.
Before reporting a bug, please try to reproduce it with the latest
version of the code. With bug reports, please try to ensure that
enough information to reproduce the problem is enclosed, and if a
known fix for it exists, include that as well.
$
$
$
$ cat rprofile.txt
# $OpenBSD: dot.profile,v 1.9 2010/12/13 12:54:31 millert Exp $
#
# sh/ksh initialization
PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin
export PATH
: ${HOME='/root'}
export HOME
PKG_PATH=
ftp://openbsd.mirror.frontiernet.net/pub/OpenBSD/5.0/packages/sparc64/
export PKG_PATH
umask 022
case "$-" in
*i*)# interactive shell
if [ -x /usr/bin/tset ]; then
if [ X"$XTERM_VERSION" = X"" ]; then
eval `/usr/bin/tset -sQ '-munknown:?vt220' $TERM`
else
eval `/usr/bin/tset -IsQ '-munknown:?vt220' $TERM`
fi
fi
;;
esac
$ clear
$ ls
gnome-session.txt rprofile.txt
$ cat gnome-session.txt
| /usr/lib/libc.so.61.0 (system): bad major
| /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.53.0 (system): bad major
$
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Bryan Irvine wrote:
> By lack of info they mean you aren't providing near enough to come to
> any conclusion at all.
>
> Please paste the output from the following:
>
> dmesg, echo $PKG_PATH, pkg_info, pkg_add -i gnome-session
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Richard Thornton
> wrote:
> > keeps looking for library c.60.1 which does not exist in a vanilla 5.0
> > install.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Nick Holland
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/19/11 14:39, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >> > On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote:
> >> >> Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package
> in
> >> the
> >> >> packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a
> clean
> >> >> 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by
> any
> >> >> means but I do know how to type pkg_add .
> >> >
> >> > Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing
> (what
> >> > you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the
> contents
> >> > of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see.
> >> >
> >> > This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release
> >> > packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know
> >> > what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before
> >> > digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure.
> >>
> >> Don't bother, he's doing something very wrong. This is a PEBKAC
> >> diagnostic issue, not an OpenBSD issue.
> >>
> >> Just happened to have a blade100 (the machine he named) sitting here,
> >> just loaded it up, but not into production yet, so blew it away (it was
> >> at -current, of course) and did exactly what he said:
> >>
> >> * simple 5.0 install from CD (only non-default was to use ntpd)
> >> * set PKG_PATH to my local mirror
> >> * pkg_add xxxterm
> >> * pkg_add firefox36 (didn't seem to be newer ones for sparc64)
> >> * pkg_add dillo
> >> * pkg_add conkeror
> >> * pkg_add midori
> >> * pkg_add kazehakase
> >> * pkg_add links+2.2p2
> >> * pkg_add elinks
> >> * pkg_add w3m-0.5.3
> >> * pkg_add links FINALLY! an error! conflict with links+. Package
> >> management system worked fine :)
> >>
> >> Other than links after links+, all installed fine.
> >>
> >> Starting them all at the same time on a blade100 with only 512M RAM was
> >> not my most productive move, but they all seemed to be trying to work,
> >> until
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
Incorrect. On Fri, Jan 13, 2012, Richard Thornton wrote: > keeps looking for library c.60.1 which does not exist in a vanilla 5.0 > install. > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Nick Holland > wrote: > >> On 12/19/11 14:39, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> > On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote: >> >> Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in >> the >> >> packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean >> >> 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any >> >> means but I do know how to type pkg_add . >> > >> > Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing (what >> > you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the contents >> > of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see. >> > >> > This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release >> > packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know >> > what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before >> > digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure. >> >> Don't bother, he's doing something very wrong. This is a PEBKAC >> diagnostic issue, not an OpenBSD issue. >> >> Just happened to have a blade100 (the machine he named) sitting here, >> just loaded it up, but not into production yet, so blew it away (it was >> at -current, of course) and did exactly what he said: >> >> * simple 5.0 install from CD (only non-default was to use ntpd) >> * set PKG_PATH to my local mirror >> * pkg_add xxxterm >> * pkg_add firefox36 (didn't seem to be newer ones for sparc64) >> * pkg_add dillo >> * pkg_add conkeror >> * pkg_add midori >> * pkg_add kazehakase >> * pkg_add links+2.2p2 >> * pkg_add elinks >> * pkg_add w3m-0.5.3 >> * pkg_add links FINALLY! an error! conflict with links+. Package >> management system worked fine :) >> >> Other than links after links+, all installed fine. >> >> Starting them all at the same time on a blade100 with only 512M RAM was >> not my most productive move, but they all seemed to be trying to work, >> until something ran out of something and X blew me back to a command >> prompt :) >> >> (I gotta play with some of these alternate browsers) >> >> Personally, I think he's screwing up between sparc and sparc64. He's >> being VERY sloppy with the platform name_s_ in his posting, so I suspect >> it is safe to assume he's doing that elsewhere. >> >> Nick.
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
keeps looking for library c.60.1 which does not exist in a vanilla 5.0 install. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Nick Holland wrote: > On 12/19/11 14:39, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote: > >> Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in > the > >> packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean > >> 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any > >> means but I do know how to type pkg_add . > > > > Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing (what > > you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the contents > > of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see. > > > > This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release > > packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know > > what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before > > digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure. > > Don't bother, he's doing something very wrong. This is a PEBKAC > diagnostic issue, not an OpenBSD issue. > > Just happened to have a blade100 (the machine he named) sitting here, > just loaded it up, but not into production yet, so blew it away (it was > at -current, of course) and did exactly what he said: > > * simple 5.0 install from CD (only non-default was to use ntpd) > * set PKG_PATH to my local mirror > * pkg_add xxxterm > * pkg_add firefox36 (didn't seem to be newer ones for sparc64) > * pkg_add dillo > * pkg_add conkeror > * pkg_add midori > * pkg_add kazehakase > * pkg_add links+2.2p2 > * pkg_add elinks > * pkg_add w3m-0.5.3 > * pkg_add links FINALLY! an error! conflict with links+. Package > management system worked fine :) > > Other than links after links+, all installed fine. > > Starting them all at the same time on a blade100 with only 512M RAM was > not my most productive move, but they all seemed to be trying to work, > until something ran out of something and X blew me back to a command > prompt :) > > (I gotta play with some of these alternate browsers) > > Personally, I think he's screwing up between sparc and sparc64. He's > being VERY sloppy with the platform name_s_ in his posting, so I suspect > it is safe to assume he's doing that elsewhere. > > Nick.
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
Complete lack of specifics. I'm ignoring. Nick. On 01/13/2012 01:49 PM, Richard Thornton wrote: I a clean 5.0 install on my sun blade today; I setup the ports folder as the documentation says to do, and I setup my PKG_PATH variable using a Chicago mirror; trying to add via the command pkg_add -i gnome-session yields immediate errors looking for a c library level 60 or 61, not sure which, but it needs it I am sure to install the package. I used the vanillia CD straight off the openbsd website for sparc64. Not sure what your suggestions will be, but this is not what the docs claim will be the case. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Richard Thornton< thornton.rich...@gmail.com> wrote: I used the advice from the blog called gab software. Perhaps he was wrong. I am willing to reinstall. I have no personal data to lose on this old box. Nick Holland wrote: On 12/19/11 14:39, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote: Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in the packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any means but I do know how to type pkg_add . Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing (what you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the contents of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see. This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure. Don't bother, he's doing something very wrong. This is a PEBKAC diagnostic issue, not an OpenBSD issue. Just happened to have a blade100 (the machine he named) sitting here, just loaded it up, but not into production yet, so blew it away (it was at -current, of course) and did exactly what he said: * simple 5.0 install from CD (only non-default was to use ntpd) * set PKG_PATH to my local mirror * pkg_add xxxterm * pkg_add firefox36 (didn't seem to be newer ones for sparc64) * pkg_add dillo * pkg_add conkeror * pkg_add midori * pkg_add kazehakase * pkg_add links+2.2p2 * pkg_add elinks * pkg_add w3m-0.5.3 * pkg_add links FINALLY! an error! conflict with links+. Package management system worked fine :) Other than links after links+, all installed fine. Starting them all at the same time on a blade100 with only 512M RAM was not my most productive move, but they all seemed to be trying to work, until something ran out of something and X blew me back to a command prompt :) (I gotta play with some of these alternate browsers) Personally, I think he's screwing up between sparc and sparc64. He's being VERY sloppy with the platform name_s_ in his posting, so I suspect it is safe to assume he's doing that elsewhere. Nick.
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
I a clean 5.0 install on my sun blade today; I setup the ports folder as the documentation says to do, and I setup my PKG_PATH variable using a Chicago mirror; trying to add via the command pkg_add -i gnome-session yields immediate errors looking for a c library level 60 or 61, not sure which, but it needs it I am sure to install the package. I used the vanillia CD straight off the openbsd website for sparc64. Not sure what your suggestions will be, but this is not what the docs claim will be the case. On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:49 AM, Richard Thornton < thornton.rich...@gmail.com> wrote: > I used the advice from the blog called gab software. Perhaps he was > wrong. I am willing to reinstall. I have no personal data to lose on > this old box. > > > > Nick Holland wrote: > > > On 12/19/11 14:39, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote: > >> Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in > the > >> packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean > >> 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any > >> means but I do know how to type pkg_add . > > > > Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing (what > > you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the contents > > of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see. > > > > This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release > > packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know > > what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before > > digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure. > > Don't bother, he's doing something very wrong. This is a PEBKAC > diagnostic issue, not an OpenBSD issue. > > Just happened to have a blade100 (the machine he named) sitting here, > just loaded it up, but not into production yet, so blew it away (it was > at -current, of course) and did exactly what he said: > > * simple 5.0 install from CD (only non-default was to use ntpd) > * set PKG_PATH to my local mirror > * pkg_add xxxterm > * pkg_add firefox36 (didn't seem to be newer ones for sparc64) > * pkg_add dillo > * pkg_add conkeror > * pkg_add midori > * pkg_add kazehakase > * pkg_add links+2.2p2 > * pkg_add elinks > * pkg_add w3m-0.5.3 > * pkg_add links FINALLY! an error! conflict with links+. Package > management system worked fine :) > > Other than links after links+, all installed fine. > > Starting them all at the same time on a blade100 with only 512M RAM was > not my most productive move, but they all seemed to be trying to work, > until something ran out of something and X blew me back to a command > prompt :) > > (I gotta play with some of these alternate browsers) > > Personally, I think he's screwing up between sparc and sparc64. He's > being VERY sloppy with the platform name_s_ in his posting, so I suspect > it is safe to assume he's doing that elsewhere. > > Nick.
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
On 12/20/2011 07:49 AM, Richard Thornton wrote: I used the advice from the blog called gab software. Perhaps he was wrong. I am willing to reinstall. I have no personal data to lose on this old box. What was deficient on the official documentation? Nick.
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
there is an excellent blog called "www.openbsd.org/faq/". Check out the advice there. It's pretty awesome. On 2011 Dec 20 (Tue) at 07:49:11 -0500 (-0500), Richard Thornton wrote: :I used the advice from the blog called gab software. Perhaps he was wrong. I am willing to reinstall. I have no personal data to lose on this old box. : :Nick Holland wrote: : :>On 12/19/11 14:39, Stuart Henderson wrote: :>> On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote: :>>> Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in the :>>> packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean :>>> 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any :>>> means but I do know how to type pkg_add . :>> :>> Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing (what :>> you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the contents :>> of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see. :>> :>> This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release :>> packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know :>> what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before :>> digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure. :> :>Don't bother, he's doing something very wrong. This is a PEBKAC :>diagnostic issue, not an OpenBSD issue. :> :>Just happened to have a blade100 (the machine he named) sitting here, :>just loaded it up, but not into production yet, so blew it away (it was :>at -current, of course) and did exactly what he said: :> :>* simple 5.0 install from CD (only non-default was to use ntpd) :>* set PKG_PATH to my local mirror :>* pkg_add xxxterm :>* pkg_add firefox36 (didn't seem to be newer ones for sparc64) :>* pkg_add dillo :>* pkg_add conkeror :>* pkg_add midori :>* pkg_add kazehakase :>* pkg_add links+2.2p2 :>* pkg_add elinks :>* pkg_add w3m-0.5.3 :>* pkg_add links FINALLY! an error! conflict with links+. Package :>management system worked fine :) :> :>Other than links after links+, all installed fine. :> :>Starting them all at the same time on a blade100 with only 512M RAM was :>not my most productive move, but they all seemed to be trying to work, :>until something ran out of something and X blew me back to a command :>prompt :) :> :>(I gotta play with some of these alternate browsers) :> :>Personally, I think he's screwing up between sparc and sparc64. He's :>being VERY sloppy with the platform name_s_ in his posting, so I suspect :>it is safe to assume he's doing that elsewhere. :> :>Nick. : -- Drew's Law of Highway Biology: The first bug to hit a clean windshield lands directly in front of your eyes.
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
I used the advice from the blog called gab software. Perhaps he was wrong. I am willing to reinstall. I have no personal data to lose on this old box. Nick Holland wrote: >On 12/19/11 14:39, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote: >>> Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in the >>> packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean >>> 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any >>> means but I do know how to type pkg_add . >> >> Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing (what >> you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the contents >> of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see. >> >> This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release >> packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know >> what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before >> digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure. > >Don't bother, he's doing something very wrong. This is a PEBKAC >diagnostic issue, not an OpenBSD issue. > >Just happened to have a blade100 (the machine he named) sitting here, >just loaded it up, but not into production yet, so blew it away (it was >at -current, of course) and did exactly what he said: > >* simple 5.0 install from CD (only non-default was to use ntpd) >* set PKG_PATH to my local mirror >* pkg_add xxxterm >* pkg_add firefox36 (didn't seem to be newer ones for sparc64) >* pkg_add dillo >* pkg_add conkeror >* pkg_add midori >* pkg_add kazehakase >* pkg_add links+2.2p2 >* pkg_add elinks >* pkg_add w3m-0.5.3 >* pkg_add links FINALLY! an error! conflict with links+. Package >management system worked fine :) > >Other than links after links+, all installed fine. > >Starting them all at the same time on a blade100 with only 512M RAM was >not my most productive move, but they all seemed to be trying to work, >until something ran out of something and X blew me back to a command >prompt :) > >(I gotta play with some of these alternate browsers) > >Personally, I think he's screwing up between sparc and sparc64. He's >being VERY sloppy with the platform name_s_ in his posting, so I suspect >it is safe to assume he's doing that elsewhere. > >Nick.
Re: claimed 5.0 problems on sparc64 (was Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0)
On 12/19/11 14:39, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote: >> Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in the >> packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean >> 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any >> means but I do know how to type pkg_add . > > Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing (what > you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the contents > of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see. > > This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release > packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know > what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before > digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure. Don't bother, he's doing something very wrong. This is a PEBKAC diagnostic issue, not an OpenBSD issue. Just happened to have a blade100 (the machine he named) sitting here, just loaded it up, but not into production yet, so blew it away (it was at -current, of course) and did exactly what he said: * simple 5.0 install from CD (only non-default was to use ntpd) * set PKG_PATH to my local mirror * pkg_add xxxterm * pkg_add firefox36 (didn't seem to be newer ones for sparc64) * pkg_add dillo * pkg_add conkeror * pkg_add midori * pkg_add kazehakase * pkg_add links+2.2p2 * pkg_add elinks * pkg_add w3m-0.5.3 * pkg_add links FINALLY! an error! conflict with links+. Package management system worked fine :) Other than links after links+, all installed fine. Starting them all at the same time on a blade100 with only 512M RAM was not my most productive move, but they all seemed to be trying to work, until something ran out of something and X blew me back to a command prompt :) (I gotta play with some of these alternate browsers) Personally, I think he's screwing up between sparc and sparc64. He's being VERY sloppy with the platform name_s_ in his posting, so I suspect it is safe to assume he's doing that elsewhere. Nick.
Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote: On 19 December 2011 16:20, Richard Thornton wrote: Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in the packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any means but I do know how to type pkg_add . So stop spreading lies and read the documentation before taxing things as "toy". With most toys children are not expected to read documentation, you know. Regards, David
Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
On 2011-12-19, Richard Thornton wrote: > Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in the > packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean > 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any > means but I do know how to type pkg_add . Please send a mail to ports@ detailing exactly what you are doing (what you're typing, what PKG_PATH is set to if you're using it, the contents of /etc/pkg.conf if you're using that) and what output you see. This is the first I've heard of any major problem with 5.0 release packages on any arch, if there is a problem obviously we need to know what went wrong so we can avoid it happening in future, but before digging into that we need to first rule out incorrect procedure.
Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
Richard Thornton writes: > I upgraded my sun blade 100 from 4.9 to 5.0; no issues but, it appears > that the packages in 4.9 are not always upgradeable to those in 5.0 and > most packages in 5.0 fail to install due to library dependencies. This sounds suspicously like you're mixing base and packages releases in some sort of unsupported combination. A wild guess -- trying to upgrade the packages not to 5.0, but rather packages matching a snapshot, perhaps? > one would assume all 5.0 packages are created using the dev tools from > 5.0 but this does not seem to be true. Once again, do not attempt to install packages built on and intende for -current on a system running -stable. > I do not have time to track down all these issues, so for me openbsd > will always remain a fun toy, but no better. Please go back and check what you did leading up to those errors. This sounds like the result of some fairly basic mistake, like trying to install -current packages on -stable. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
On 19 December 2011 16:20, Richard Thornton wrote: > Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in the > packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean > 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any > means but I do know how to type pkg_add . So stop spreading lies and read the documentation before taxing things as "toy".
Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
On 19 December 2011 16:02, Richard Thornton wrote: > I upgraded my sun blade 100 from 4.9 to 5.0; no issues but, it appears > that the packages in 4.9 are not always upgradeable to those in 5.0 and > most packages in 5.0 fail to install due to library dependencies. one > would assume all 5.0 packages are created using the dev tools from 5.0 but > this does not seem to be true. I do not have time to track down all these > issues, so for me openbsd will always remain a fun toy, but no better. > Richard: sun blade 100 is a sparc64 system, he was specifically asking for amd64. You clearly have no idea what you're doing, and instead of learning you go to public bashing, no one is forcing you to do anything, and we've provided excellent documentation about the upgrade process. What amazes me is that upgrading is one of best things about OpenBSD, devs put a lot of effort into doing it right, and yet there are types like who come and say whatever crap they feel like to. I've started using OpenBSD in 4.2 and been upgrading since them. I *never* had an issue. There are a lot of people out there doing since much much much older releases. Insan: As for the original question, no, you should have no problems. We all run a bunch of amd64 machines and upgrade it constantly, if not daily. Please report back if you have any troubles.
Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
Do a simple clean 5.0 install. One would assume any browser package in the packages folder would install. None do for me on sparc, but with a clean 4.9 install all 4.9 packages install. I am not a Unix specialist by any means but I do know how to type pkg_add . On Dec 19, 2011 1:15 PM, "Daniel Bolgheroni" wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:02:59PM -0500, Richard Thornton wrote: > > it appears > > that the packages in 4.9 are not always upgradeable to those in 5.0 and > > most packages in 5.0 fail to install due to library dependencies. > > What? > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean.
Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 01:02:59PM -0500, Richard Thornton wrote: > it appears > that the packages in 4.9 are not always upgradeable to those in 5.0 and > most packages in 5.0 fail to install due to library dependencies. What? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
I upgraded my sun blade 100 from 4.9 to 5.0; no issues but, it appears that the packages in 4.9 are not always upgradeable to those in 5.0 and most packages in 5.0 fail to install due to library dependencies. one would assume all 5.0 packages are created using the dev tools from 5.0 but this does not seem to be true. I do not have time to track down all these issues, so for me openbsd will always remain a fun toy, but no better. On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Insan Praja SW wrote: > Hi Misc@, > > I'm planning to upgrade an 4.9 AMD64-stable to 5.0. I've read FAQ Upgrade > Guide, and I think there are no potential PITA. But I'd love to hear from > others who has experience upgrading 4.9-stable to 5.0 AMD64. > > The server is a; > > OpenBSD 4.9-stable (kernel-amd64) #1: Sun May 22 05:08:40 WIT 2011 >ad...@server.xyz.com:/kernel-**amd64 > real mem = 3486973952 (3325MB) > avail mem = 3380129792 (3223MB) > mainbus0 at root > bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.5 @ 0xcfedf000 (39 entries) > bios0: vendor Phoenix Technologies LTD version "1.3a" date 11/03/2009 > bios0: Supermicro X7SBi > acpi0 at bios0: rev 2 > acpi0: sleep states S0 S1 S4 S5 > acpi0: tables DSDT FACP _MAR MCFG APIC BOOT SPCR ERST HEST BERT EINJ SLIC > SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT > acpi0: wakeup devices PXHA(S5) PEX_(S5) LAN_(S5) USB4(S5) USB5(S5) > USB7(S5) ESB2(S5) EXP1(S5) EXP5(S5) EXP6(S5) USB1(S5) USB2(S5) USB3(S5) > USB6(S5) ESB1(S5) PCIB(S5) KBC0(S1) MSE0(S1) COM1(S5) COM2(S5) PWRB(S3) > acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits > acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xe000, bus 0-16 > acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat > cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) > cpu0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @ 2.66GHz, 2667.23 MHz > cpu0: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,**MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,** > CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,**MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,** > SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,**EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,** > SSE4.1,XSAVE,NXE,LONG > cpu0: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache > cpu0: apic clock running at 333MHz > cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor) > cpu1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @ 2.66GHz, 2666.85 MHz > cpu1: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,**MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,** > CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,**MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,** > SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,**EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,** > SSE4.1,XSAVE,NXE,LONG > cpu1: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache > cpu2 at mainbus0: apid 2 (application processor) > cpu2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @ 2.66GHz, 2666.86 MHz > cpu2: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,**MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,** > CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,**MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,** > SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,**EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,** > SSE4.1,XSAVE,NXE,LONG > cpu2: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache > cpu3 at mainbus0: apid 3 (application processor) > cpu3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @ 2.66GHz, 2666.85 MHz > cpu3: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,**MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,** > CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,**MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,** > SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,**EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,** > SSE4.1,XSAVE,NXE,LONG > cpu3: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache > ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 4 pa 0xfec0, version 20, 24 pins > ioapic1 at mainbus0: apid 5 pa 0xfecc, version 20, 24 pins > acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0) > acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 2 (PXHA) > acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX_) > acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus 5 (EXP1) > acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus 13 (EXP5) > acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus 15 (EXP6) > acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus 17 (PCIB) > acpicpu0 at acpi0: C3, PSS > acpicpu1 at acpi0: C3, PSS > acpicpu2 at acpi0: C3, PSS > acpicpu3 at acpi0: C3, PSS > acpibtn0 at acpi0: PWRB > acpivideo0 at acpi0: IGD0 > ipmi at mainbus0 not configured > cpu0: Enhanced SpeedStep 2666 MHz: speeds: 2667, 2333, 2000 MHz > pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0 > pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 "Intel 3200/3210 Host" rev 0x01 > ppb0 at pci0 dev 1 function 0 "Intel 3200/3210 PCIE" rev 0x01: apic 4 int > 16 (irq 5) > pci1 at ppb0 bus 1 > ppb1 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PCIE-PCIE" rev 0x09 > pci2 at ppb1 bus 2 > "Intel IOxAPIC" rev 0x09 at pci1 dev 0 function 1 not configured > uhci0 at pci0 dev 26 function 0 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 16 > (irq 5) > uhci1 at pci0 dev 26 function 1 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 17 > (irq 10) > uhci2 at pci0 dev 26 function 2 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 18 > (irq 11) > ehci0 at pci0 dev 26 function 7 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 18 > (irq 11) > usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 > uhub0 at usb0 "Intel EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1 > ppb2 at pci0 dev 28 function 0 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 16 > (irq 5) > pci3 at ppb2 bus 5 > ppb3 at pci0 dev 28 function 4 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 16 > (irq 5) > pci4 at ppb3 bus 13 > em0 at pci4 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000MT (82573E)" rev 0x03: apic 4 > int 16 (irq 5), address 00:30:48:f8:cb:7a > ppb4 at pci0 dev 28 function 5 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 17
Upgrading AMD64 4.9-stable to 5.0
Hi Misc@, I'm planning to upgrade an 4.9 AMD64-stable to 5.0. I've read FAQ Upgrade Guide, and I think there are no potential PITA. But I'd love to hear from others who has experience upgrading 4.9-stable to 5.0 AMD64. The server is a; OpenBSD 4.9-stable (kernel-amd64) #1: Sun May 22 05:08:40 WIT 2011 ad...@server.xyz.com:/kernel-amd64 real mem = 3486973952 (3325MB) avail mem = 3380129792 (3223MB) mainbus0 at root bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.5 @ 0xcfedf000 (39 entries) bios0: vendor Phoenix Technologies LTD version "1.3a" date 11/03/2009 bios0: Supermicro X7SBi acpi0 at bios0: rev 2 acpi0: sleep states S0 S1 S4 S5 acpi0: tables DSDT FACP _MAR MCFG APIC BOOT SPCR ERST HEST BERT EINJ SLIC SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT SSDT acpi0: wakeup devices PXHA(S5) PEX_(S5) LAN_(S5) USB4(S5) USB5(S5) USB7(S5) ESB2(S5) EXP1(S5) EXP5(S5) EXP6(S5) USB1(S5) USB2(S5) USB3(S5) USB6(S5) ESB1(S5) PCIB(S5) KBC0(S1) MSE0(S1) COM1(S5) COM2(S5) PWRB(S3) acpitimer0 at acpi0: 3579545 Hz, 24 bits acpimcfg0 at acpi0 addr 0xe000, bus 0-16 acpimadt0 at acpi0 addr 0xfee0: PC-AT compat cpu0 at mainbus0: apid 0 (boot processor) cpu0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @ 2.66GHz, 2667.23 MHz cpu0: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE,NXE,LONG cpu0: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache cpu0: apic clock running at 333MHz cpu1 at mainbus0: apid 1 (application processor) cpu1: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @ 2.66GHz, 2666.85 MHz cpu1: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE,NXE,LONG cpu1: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache cpu2 at mainbus0: apid 2 (application processor) cpu2: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @ 2.66GHz, 2666.86 MHz cpu2: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE,NXE,LONG cpu2: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache cpu3 at mainbus0: apid 3 (application processor) cpu3: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3330 @ 2.66GHz, 2666.85 MHz cpu3: FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CFLUSH,DS,ACPI,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2,SS,HTT,TM,SBF,SSE3,MWAIT,DS-CPL,VMX,SMX,EST,TM2,SSSE3,CX16,xTPR,PDCM,SSE4.1,XSAVE,NXE,LONG cpu3: 3MB 64b/line 8-way L2 cache ioapic0 at mainbus0: apid 4 pa 0xfec0, version 20, 24 pins ioapic1 at mainbus0: apid 5 pa 0xfecc, version 20, 24 pins acpiprt0 at acpi0: bus 0 (PCI0) acpiprt1 at acpi0: bus 2 (PXHA) acpiprt2 at acpi0: bus -1 (PEX_) acpiprt3 at acpi0: bus 5 (EXP1) acpiprt4 at acpi0: bus 13 (EXP5) acpiprt5 at acpi0: bus 15 (EXP6) acpiprt6 at acpi0: bus 17 (PCIB) acpicpu0 at acpi0: C3, PSS acpicpu1 at acpi0: C3, PSS acpicpu2 at acpi0: C3, PSS acpicpu3 at acpi0: C3, PSS acpibtn0 at acpi0: PWRB acpivideo0 at acpi0: IGD0 ipmi at mainbus0 not configured cpu0: Enhanced SpeedStep 2666 MHz: speeds: 2667, 2333, 2000 MHz pci0 at mainbus0 bus 0 pchb0 at pci0 dev 0 function 0 "Intel 3200/3210 Host" rev 0x01 ppb0 at pci0 dev 1 function 0 "Intel 3200/3210 PCIE" rev 0x01: apic 4 int 16 (irq 5) pci1 at ppb0 bus 1 ppb1 at pci1 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PCIE-PCIE" rev 0x09 pci2 at ppb1 bus 2 "Intel IOxAPIC" rev 0x09 at pci1 dev 0 function 1 not configured uhci0 at pci0 dev 26 function 0 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 16 (irq 5) uhci1 at pci0 dev 26 function 1 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 17 (irq 10) uhci2 at pci0 dev 26 function 2 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 18 (irq 11) ehci0 at pci0 dev 26 function 7 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 18 (irq 11) usb0 at ehci0: USB revision 2.0 uhub0 at usb0 "Intel EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1 ppb2 at pci0 dev 28 function 0 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 16 (irq 5) pci3 at ppb2 bus 5 ppb3 at pci0 dev 28 function 4 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 16 (irq 5) pci4 at ppb3 bus 13 em0 at pci4 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000MT (82573E)" rev 0x03: apic 4 int 16 (irq 5), address 00:30:48:f8:cb:7a ppb4 at pci0 dev 28 function 5 "Intel 82801I PCIE" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 17 (irq 10) pci5 at ppb4 bus 15 em1 at pci5 dev 0 function 0 "Intel PRO/1000MT (82573L)" rev 0x00: apic 4 int 17 (irq 10), address 00:30:48:f8:cb:7b uhci3 at pci0 dev 29 function 0 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 23 (irq 10) uhci4 at pci0 dev 29 function 1 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 22 (irq 11) uhci5 at pci0 dev 29 function 2 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 18 (irq 11) ehci1 at pci0 dev 29 function 7 "Intel 82801I USB" rev 0x02: apic 4 int 23 (irq 10) usb1 at ehci1: USB revision 2.0 uhub1 at usb1 "Intel EHCI root hub" rev 2.00/1.00 addr 1 ppb5 at pci0 dev 30 function 0 "Intel 82801BA Hub-to-PCI" rev 0x92 pci6 at ppb5 bus 17 vga1 at pci6 dev 3 function 0 "A
