Re: Time to test sarge
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:45:31PM +0100, T.J. Zeeman wrote: > > What is a bit odd is mtr-tiny. I got version .58-1.0.0.1.pure64 > installed while both sid and sarge should already be at .67-1. mtr does not build on amd64, which is why it's patched. Neither the maintainer nor upstream has applied the patch I supplied. See bugs.debian.org/254089 for more information. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Hi, On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 18:06 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can > point apt to: > > deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib > non-free I've been running this since shortly after the announcement and it seems to be stable enough for my needs. No crashes or trouble while upgrading or installing other software whatsoever AFAICT. A few bits and pieces have still not propagated to this repository that were in the sid pure64. Evince, libflac6, nvidia-* and kernel-*-2.6.10 are understandable, they're not yet out of sid at all. What is a bit odd is mtr-tiny. I got version .58-1.0.0.1.pure64 installed while both sid and sarge should already be at .67-1. Keep up the great work! regards, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) writes: > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> the owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I used the above sources.list with this image: >> >sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M >> >> I can't figure that one out: >> >> apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev >> >> libc6: >> 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 >>1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages >> libc6-dev: >> 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 >>1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages >> >> Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a >> Replaces: base-files (<< 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. > > I just did virtually this same installation using the same image. The > 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 came in through the sid-amd64-netinst.iso > image. I have not seen any problems yet due to this issue but the > machine is just barely installed to the base system right now. The 2.3.2.ds1-20 and 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 are identical apart from an Replaces on old base-files. The only thing this breaks is the libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-20 since it depends on the exact same version. > Most things worked well. But upon reboot the grub loader went into an > infinite loop loading stage 1.5. I booted grub from a DFS disk and > used it to boot the installed kernel. That worked. I reinstalled > grub from the installed system and all was good. It rebooted normally > after that. Known 2.6.10 issue. > Looking forward to the new sarge-amd64-netinst.iso image that I > understand from one of your other messages is in the process of > uploading now. > > Bob MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > the owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I used the above sources.list with this image: > > sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M > > I can't figure that one out: > > apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev > > libc6: > 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 >1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages > libc6-dev: > 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 >1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages > > Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a > Replaces: base-files (<< 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. I just did virtually this same installation using the same image. The 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 came in through the sid-amd64-netinst.iso image. I have not seen any problems yet due to this issue but the machine is just barely installed to the base system right now. Most things worked well. But upon reboot the grub loader went into an infinite loop loading stage 1.5. I booted grub from a DFS disk and used it to boot the installed kernel. That worked. I reinstalled grub from the installed system and all was good. It rebooted normally after that. Looking forward to the new sarge-amd64-netinst.iso image that I understand from one of your other messages is in the process of uploading now. Bob signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Time to test sarge
Dmitry Derjavin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately current sid image doesn't allow to install on Asus A8V > Deluxe with PATA drives because of the bootloader problem described in > "Another sata failure report" and "Grub problem?" threads. When it comes to installing grub press ESC or select cancel to get back to the main menu. This will automatically lower the debconf priority. Continuing with the install (at that lower priority) should then ask you if you want grub or lilo, choose the later. If it doesn't repeat (or lower the debconf priority in the main menu). Alternatively you can start D-I in expert mode but then you get all the questions even before grub. > Are there any known problems with sid netinst image from, say, > 24-Jan-2005? Is there one from the 24th? I think I removed all the images with kernel version skews so anything you find should be fine. (if not tell me and it's gone). > I still want to try sarge/amd64 on A8V. > > Thanks again! MfG Goswin PS: new image is rsyncing, will take some hours -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On Wed, Feb 16 2005 at 01:29, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >>> The sid one was the right one to test. The sarge one has >>> kernel/module version skews. It's rather useless and I removed >>> it. I will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs >>> are uploaded. >> >> Could you please tell -- when (or if) new sarge netinst images will >> be available? Or maybe it's better now to install from the sid one >> and point apt to testing? >> >> Thanks! > > Use sid to install, point apt to testing and then downgrade the > libc6/libc6-dev to avoid the conflict. > > Or pin testing to >1000 and apt will do it automatically. Unfortunately current sid image doesn't allow to install on Asus A8V Deluxe with PATA drives because of the bootloader problem described in "Another sata failure report" and "Grub problem?" threads. Are there any known problems with sid netinst image from, say, 24-Jan-2005? I still want to try sarge/amd64 on A8V. Thanks again! -- ~dd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 06:08:11PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Harlan) writes: > > > I pointed a gcc-3.4 machine that hasn't been updated in a few months > > to your archive, and started by trying to install libc6, which > > resulted in this: > > > > Unpacking replacement libc6 ... > > dpkg: error processing > > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb (--unpack): > > trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package base-files > > Errors were encountered while processing: > > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb > > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) > > You just missed the "everyone needs to update now sice we will break > the upgrade path soon" mails a while back. > > The /lib64 and /usr/lib64 links have been moved from base-files to > libc6 and the required hints for a smooth upgrade were only added > temporarily. You have to use --force-overwrite now. Thank you, that worked well. --Pete -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Harlan) writes: > I pointed a gcc-3.4 machine that hasn't been updated in a few months > to your archive, and started by trying to install libc6, which > resulted in this: > > Unpacking replacement libc6 ... > dpkg: error processing > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb (--unpack): >trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package base-files > Errors were encountered while processing: >/var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) You just missed the "everyone needs to update now sice we will break the upgrade path soon" mails a while back. The /lib64 and /usr/lib64 links have been moved from base-files to libc6 and the required hints for a smooth upgrade were only added temporarily. You have to use --force-overwrite now. MfG Goswin PS: going from gcc-3.4 back to pure64 can cause more problems -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:06:15PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can > point apt to: > > deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib > non-free Hi, Thank you very much for your work! I pointed a gcc-3.4 machine that hasn't been updated in a few months to your archive, and started by trying to install libc6, which resulted in this: Unpacking replacement libc6 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb (--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package base-files Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) My /usr/lib* looks like this: % ls -ld /usr/lib* drwxr-xr-x 37 root root 12288 Feb 15 10:26 /usr/lib/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 3 Jan 3 2001 /usr/lib64 -> lib/ Do I need to replace /usr/lib64 with a real directory, or is there something else obviously wrong? Many thanks, -- Pete Harlan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Dmitry Derjavin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Feb 13 2005 at 17:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free >>> >>> This time I used this image: >>> sarge-amd64-netinst.iso 15-Jan-2005 17:38 125M >> >> The sid one was the right one to test. The sarge one has >> kernel/module version skews. It's rather useless and I removed it. I >> will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs are >> uploaded. > > Could you please tell -- when (or if) new sarge netinst images will be > available? Or maybe it's better now to install from the sid one and > point apt to testing? > > Thanks! Use sid to install, point apt to testing and then downgrade the libc6/libc6-dev to avoid the conflict. Or pin testing to >1000 and apt will do it automatically. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On Sun, Feb 13 2005 at 17:24, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >>> So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can >>> point apt to: >>> deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main >>> contrib non-free >> >> This time I used this image: >> sarge-amd64-netinst.iso 15-Jan-2005 17:38 125M > > The sid one was the right one to test. The sarge one has > kernel/module version skews. It's rather useless and I removed it. I > will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs are > uploaded. Could you please tell -- when (or if) new sarge netinst images will be available? Or maybe it's better now to install from the sid one and point apt to testing? Thanks! -- ~dd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That confirms sarge libc6-dev is at least 17 days later. > Both the 11Feb and 24Jan images must have been built from > sid containing the libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 package > except sarge libc6-dev requires libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20. I would > need to try a netinst built from libc6 <= 2.3.2.ds1-20 to > avoid the need to downgrade. I could try a very old > installer from way last year and then everything in sarge > would be an upgrade. > >> I'm plaing to downgrade the sid libc6 to an unpatched >> form to fix this. The patch was only needed for upgrades >> and hopefully everyone has done so now. Any objections? > > Now I'm confused about that. Was the patch to do with > linking /lib/amd64? > > I have downgraded packages before using dpkg not using > apt-get or dselect. These problems should be blamed on the > installer not on sid. Please don't experiment with the > most excellent sid for this reason. When we started we had the /lib64 -> /lib link in base-files as patch. Recently the /lib64 link has been added to debians glibc package and we had to remove it from base-files to avoid conflicts. For this move (base-files -> libc6) to work without self destructing the system some extra infos in the control file are needed, included in the libc6 patch. Now that everyone has upgraded they are no longer needed and I plan to downgrade libc6 instead of maintaining a now useless patch. (Unless a new glibc upload beats me to it). > * > * Could you post an iso built from the sarge packages? * > * > > Maybe the same routine used to build the 11Feb images only > build * from * sarge * instead * of * sid. > > Is the point of sarge to build a full CD image to install > without a network? That is going to need a sarge installer. > > I forgot how to build my own image from the files so I would > need to actually read the manual to make my own. None of the > recent install-images are suitable for installing sarge. http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/tools/make-cd.sh But you need the kernel-image and linux-kernel-di packages in sarge first for it to build a CD. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin wrote: > >>> I tried again and base config failed again on file >>> server config and manual package config. This could be >>> the same problem as below. >> I don't understand what you mean here. I guess I have to >> see it with my own eyes. I suspect some deb is stuck the >> upload queue that base-config needs or something. An >> error for this just flashes by and is hard to spot or >> actualy read what is missing. > > +++ > > I should try an installer on sid to be sure. The problem has > been occurring when the dialog pops up and say Base Package > Config and shows a list of choices for example: > > Web Server > File Server > Mail Server > DNS Server > Manual Package Selection > > I make a choice and the next dialog pops up and says there > is a problem and maybe broken packages will result. None of > the choices has ever worked with the three images I have > tried when using the debian-pure64 testing for an archive. That sounds like tasksel. Since we have no "task: xyz" infos in the Packages file that won't work. The task infor comes from some override file and has to be added to the Packages file somehow. Script to add it is welcome. > The only thing that has worked at this time is to Exit the > Base Config. Then I go to dselect and try to finish getting > the rest installed. > > I haven't tried this with sid yet only testing. I don't know > if the installer goes to fetch the information or if that is > built into the installer. > > :-( If it is tasksel then this is normal. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote already: I will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs are uploaded. Whoops! That would be great! Sorry for the previous trivia. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be fixed in a day or two. I think everything will work after sarge is updated to yesterdays sid. No, patched sources/debs don't enter sarge (not automatically, not yet). This needs manual fixing, see below. I have tried another image and the same problem occurs: sid-amd64-netinst.iso 24-Jan-2005 08:46 126M That confirms sarge libc6-dev is at least 17 days later. Both the 11Feb and 24Jan images must have been built from sid containing the libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 package except sarge libc6-dev requires libc6 2.3.2.ds1-20. I would need to try a netinst built from libc6 <= 2.3.2.ds1-20 to avoid the need to downgrade. I could try a very old installer from way last year and then everything in sarge would be an upgrade. I'm plaing to downgrade the sid libc6 to an unpatched form to fix this. The patch was only needed for upgrades and hopefully everyone has done so now. Any objections? Now I'm confused about that. Was the patch to do with linking /lib/amd64? I have downgraded packages before using dpkg not using apt-get or dselect. These problems should be blamed on the installer not on sid. Please don't experiment with the most excellent sid for this reason. * * Could you post an iso built from the sarge packages? * * Maybe the same routine used to build the 11Feb images only build * from * sarge * instead * of * sid. Is the point of sarge to build a full CD image to install without a network? That is going to need a sarge installer. I forgot how to build my own image from the files so I would need to actually read the manual to make my own. None of the recent install-images are suitable for installing sarge. .. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: I tried again and base config failed again on file server config and manual package config. This could be the same problem as below. I don't understand what you mean here. I guess I have to see it with my own eyes. I suspect some deb is stuck the upload queue that base-config needs or something. An error for this just flashes by and is hard to spot or actualy read what is missing. +++ I should try an installer on sid to be sure. The problem has been occurring when the dialog pops up and say Base Package Config and shows a list of choices for example: Web Server File Server Mail Server DNS Server Manual Package Selection I make a choice and the next dialog pops up and says there is a problem and maybe broken packages will result. None of the choices has ever worked with the three images I have tried when using the debian-pure64 testing for an archive. The only thing that has worked at this time is to Exit the Base Config. Then I go to dselect and try to finish getting the rest installed. I haven't tried this with sid yet only testing. I don't know if the installer goes to fetch the information or if that is built into the installer. :-( -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin wrote: > >> So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can >> point apt to: >> deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main >> contrib non-free > > This time I used this image: > sarge-amd64-netinst.iso 15-Jan-2005 17:38 125M The sid one was the right one to test. The sarge one has kernel/module version skews. It's rather useless and I removed it. I will build a new sarge image once the ~500MB remaining debs are uploaded. > The installer from 15 January was terrible compared to the > 11 February version. There was only the ext2 and xfs file > systems to choose from and the kernel had problems with the > sk98lin. I recommend the 15 January sarge netinst iso not be > used. I was able to get to the reboot and finish just to > test the upgrading of packages from debian-pure64 testing. > I used my current kernel to reboot into the sarge partition > so I could avoid the grub gamble. > > I finished the installation and then went to upgrade from > the debian-pure64 testing just to see if everything worked. > I used dselect and just chose all of the identified new > and upgraded packages from testing. This was the problem > after downloading the 99MB of debs and trying to install: > > > (Reading database ... 9668 files and directories currently > installed.) > Preparing to replace libc6 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using > .../libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb) ... > Unpacking replacement libc6 ... > dpkg: error processing > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb(--unpack): > > trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package > base-files > > Errors were encountered while processing: > /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) Expected since the sarge image was from before the transition and needs the 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 to upgrade cleanly. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin wrote: > >>> I used the above sources.list with this image: >>> sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M Maybe that is the >>> wrong image to test the debian-pure64 testing. After reboot the >>> base config did not allow manual package selection. > > I tried again and base config failed again on file server config and > manual package config. This could be the same problem as below. I don't understand what you mean here. I guess I have to see it with my own eyes. I suspect some deb is stuck the upload queue that base-config needs or something. An error for this just flashes by and is hard to spot or actualy read what is missing. >>> I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts >>> with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = >>> 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I >>> think that would be fixed in a day or two. > > I think everything will work after sarge is updated to yesterdays sid. No, patched sources/debs don't enter sarge (not automatically, not yet). This needs manual fixing, see below. >> I can't figure that one out: >> apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev >> libc6: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org >> sarge/main Packages libc6-dev: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 >> http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages >> Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a >> Replaces: base-files (<< 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. >> Could you try the libc6/libc6-dev again though and check with >> apt-cache policy where it comes from? >> MfG Goswin > > +++ > > I really think I used a netinst image that was too new. The libc6 must > have come from sid in the sid-amd64-netinst.iso and conflicted with the > Packages in testing. I think I should have tried sarge-amd64-netinst.iso > because the 11 Febuary unstable sid must be ahead of testing sarge. Ahh, right. That is the case. I'm plaing to downgrade the sid libc6 to an unpatched form to fix this. The patch was only needed for upgrades and hopefully everyone has done so now. Any objections? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free This time I used this image: sarge-amd64-netinst.iso 15-Jan-2005 17:38 125M The installer from 15 January was terrible compared to the 11 February version. There was only the ext2 and xfs file systems to choose from and the kernel had problems with the sk98lin. I recommend the 15 January sarge netinst iso not be used. I was able to get to the reboot and finish just to test the upgrading of packages from debian-pure64 testing. I used my current kernel to reboot into the sarge partition so I could avoid the grub gamble. I finished the installation and then went to upgrade from the debian-pure64 testing just to see if everything worked. I used dselect and just chose all of the identified new and upgraded packages from testing. This was the problem after downloading the 99MB of debs and trying to install: (Reading database ... 9668 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace libc6 2.3.2.ds1-18 (using .../libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libc6 ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb(--unpack): trying to overwrite `/usr/lib64', which is also in package base-files Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libc6_2.3.2.ds1-20_amd64.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) +++ Here is the info from apt-cache policy base-files: Installed: 3.1-0.0.0.2.pure64 Candidate: 3.1.2 Version Table: 3.1.2 0 500 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org testing/main Packages *** 3.1-0.0.0.2.pure64 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status libc6: Installed: 2.3.2.ds1-18 Candidate: 2.3.2.ds1-20 Version Table: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 500 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org testing/main Packages *** 2.3.2.ds1-18 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status +++ I had to fix the /usr/lib64 link about six weeks ago for my own installation and the problem still seems to exist. Maybe the sarge-amd64-netinst.iso from 15 January had the problem and a newer iso would be fixed or the problem is in the packages in testing. I could try to manually install the newer base-files before the newer libc6. If the problem is due to the base-files-3.1-0.0.0.2.pure64 being used in that netinst then maybe removing that image would stop the problem. That image should be removed anyway because of the kernel module problems and bad features in my opinion. I don't know if the problem is with the netinst iso or the testing sarge. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: I used the above sources.list with this image: sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M Maybe that is the wrong image to test the debian-pure64 testing. After reboot the base config did not allow manual package selection. I tried again and base config failed again on file server config and manual package config. This could be the same problem as below. I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be fixed in a day or two. I think everything will work after sarge is updated to yesterdays sid. I can't figure that one out: apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev libc6: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages libc6-dev: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a Replaces: base-files (<< 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. Could you try the libc6/libc6-dev again though and check with apt-cache policy where it comes from? MfG Goswin +++ I really think I used a netinst image that was too new. The libc6 must have come from sid in the sid-amd64-netinst.iso and conflicted with the Packages in testing. I think I should have tried sarge-amd64-netinst.iso because the 11 Febuary unstable sid must be ahead of testing sarge. Here is more info than you requested: libc6: Installed: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 Candidate: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 Version Table: *** 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 500 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org testing/main Packages libc6-dev: Installed: (none) Candidate: 2.3.2.ds1-20 Version Table: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 500 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org testing/main Packages Package: libc6 Versions: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64(/var/lib/dpkg/status) 2.3.2.ds1-20(/var/lib/apt/lists/debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org_debian-pure64_dists_testing_main_binary-amd64_Packages) Reverse Depends: omitted Dependencies: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 - libdb1-compat (0 (null)) locales (0 (null)) glibc-doc (0 (null)) strace (3 4.0-0) libnss-db (1 2.2-6.1.1) timezone (0 (null)) timezones (0 (null)) gconv-modules (0 (null)) libtricks (0 (null)) libc6-doc (0 (null)) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) wine (3 0.0.20031118-1) cyrus-imapd (3 1.5.19-15) ldso (1 1.9.11-9) timezone (0 (null)) timezones (0 (null)) gconv-modules (0 (null)) libtricks (0 (null)) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) netbase (3 4.0) libc6-dev (3 2.3.2.ds1-14) base-files (3 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) 2.3.2.ds1-20 - libdb1-compat (0 (null)) locales (0 (null)) glibc-doc (0 (null)) strace (3 4.0-0) libnss-db (1 2.2-6.1.1) timezone (0 (null)) timezones (0 (null)) gconv-modules (0 (null)) libtricks (0 (null)) libc6-doc (0 (null)) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) wine (3 0.0.20031118-1) cyrus-imapd (3 1.5.19-15) ldso (1 1.9.11-9) timezone (0 (null)) timezones (0 (null)) gconv-modules (0 (null)) libtricks (0 (null)) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) netbase (3 4.0) libc6-dev (3 2.3.2.ds1-14) Provides: 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 - glibc-2.3.2.ds1-20 2.3.2.ds1-20 - glibc-2.3.2.ds1-20 Reverse Provides: Package: libc6-dev Versions: 2.3.2.ds1-20(/var/lib/apt/lists/debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org_debian-pure64_dists_testing_main_binary-amd64_Packages) Reverse Depends: omitted Dependencies: 2.3.2.ds1-20 - libc6 (5 2.3.2.ds1-20) linux-kernel-headers (0 (null)) glibc-doc (0 (null)) manpages-dev (0 (null)) gcc (16 (null)) c-compiler (0 (null)) libstdc++2.10-dev (3 1:2.95.2-15) gcc-2.95 (3 1:2.95.3-8) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) libc-dev (0 (null)) man-db (1 2.3.10-41) gettext (1 0.10.26-1) ppp (1 2.2.0f-24) libgdbmg1-dev (1 1.7.3-24) ldso (1 1.9.11-9) netkit-rpc (0 (null)) netbase (3 4.0) kerberos4kth-dev (3 1.2.2-10) Provides: 2.3.2.ds1-20 - libc-dev Reverse Provides: ## -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the installation, can DFS be used to install amd64-sarge? I tried this last year using the same images from October. The DFS takes more expertise to use than the Debian Installer. The DFS boots into ram like a LiveCD unless you tell the kernel to boot an existing root installation. While in ram you can then partition the disk and create the filesystems from the programs on the CD. Then chroot to the new partition and debootstrap. That takes some experience with debian or at least another Linux dist. I can't remember if the Debian Installer is included. There is a debian package to build a custom DFS. That is not too easy. Be sure to modprobe sk98lin for the Yukon ethernet controller used on many AMD64 motherboards because that didn't get recognized. I've used DFS for the past 20 or so Debian installations and I find it to be a good tool. It's actually far simpler than I thought at first. I was just hoping to see a newer version of it, with newer kernel images available. As you noted, its not too easy to build a custom DFS, so I'd rather skip that. /v\ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
the owner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Goswin wrote: > >> So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can >> point apt to: >> deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main >> contrib non-free > > OK. I remember some things from my first install so now I can check. > > I used the above sources.list with this image: > sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M > Maybe that is the wrong image to test the debian-pure64 testing. > The installation went very smoothly with no difficulty through reboot. That is good to hear. It has been a while since an image worked. > After reboot the base config did not allow manual package selection. I > exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with > dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 > and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be > fixed in a day or two. I can't figure that one out: apt-cache policy libc6 libc6-dev libc6: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages libc6-dev: 2.3.2.ds1-20 0 1001 http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org sarge/main Packages Only sid has 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64 which only differs in having a Replaces: base-files (<< 3.1.2-0.0.0.1.pure64) for update purposes. >... > I tried to use the netinst image as a rescue disk and could not make the > kernel boot my good partition. There were no instructions on how to use > the netinst as a rescue disk so maybe that is not possible. I could use > the F2 key for a few things, probably not enough. I didn't read the > Debian Installation Manual so that should be the same as everybody else. The debian kernels have everything build as modules except the initrd support. As a result the kernel fits on a floppy but you can only boot from initrd. And I haven't yet found a way to tell the D-I initrd to act as a rescue image and boot an existing linux. > I think the only problem is with the libc6-dev testing package. The > kernel finally worked perfectly and automatically. The Installer was > very easy to use. Thanks for testing. Could you try the libc6/libc6-dev again though and check with apt-cache policy where it comes from? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin wrote: So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can point apt to: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free OK. I remember some things from my first install so now I can check. I used the above sources.list with this image: sid-amd64-netinst.iso11-Feb-2005 09:01 193M Maybe that is the wrong image to test the debian-pure64 testing. The installation went very smoothly with no difficulty through reboot. After reboot the base config did not allow manual package selection. I exited the base config and tried dselect and there were conflicts with dependency on libc6. The libc6-dev depends on libc6 = 2.3.2.ds1-20 and libc6 was version 2.3.2.ds1-20.0.0.1.pure64. I think that would be fixed in a day or two. Many problems were gone and the Installer was fairly perfect for my computer. My computer is an ASUS A8V with WD Raptor SATA boot partition and IDE home partition. I did not test the grub bootloader to prevent disturbing my current setup. I first created a ReiserFS partition just for a test and continued until the Installer rebooted. I then reinstalled again making an ext3 partition with no difficulty. There were no problems until finding the debian-pure64 package dependency with dselect. The kernel setup worked properly and the ethernet worked without any intervention. That had been a problem before. There was no problem this time easily getting to alioth after reboot. I have previously had a problem with getting the correct broadcast address in the network. I manually configure and ask for a 192.168.x.255 address and found 0.0.0.0 when checking with ifconfig before reboot. The correct broadcast was entered into the /etc/network/interfaces file so everything worked properly after rebooting. Some installers access the internet before rebooting so that could be a problem. That is the same problem with the Debian-i386 installer and not unique to AMD64. That broadcast address would crash my DSLmodem so I had to push the reset button and the installer would then timeout and start over instead of resuming in the middle of the installation. There were no problems this time except the 0.0.0.0 should not be a broadcast address. I tried to use the netinst image as a rescue disk and could not make the kernel boot my good partition. There were no instructions on how to use the netinst as a rescue disk so maybe that is not possible. I could use the F2 key for a few things, probably not enough. I didn't read the Debian Installation Manual so that should be the same as everybody else. I think the only problem is with the libc6-dev testing package. The kernel finally worked perfectly and automatically. The Installer was very easy to use. :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Time to test sarge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the installation, can DFS be used to install amd64-sarge? I tried this last year using the same images from October. The DFS takes more expertise to use than the Debian Installer. The DFS boots into ram like a LiveCD unless you tell the kernel to boot an existing root installation. While in ram you can then partition the disk and create the filesystems from the programs on the CD. Then chroot to the new partition and debootstrap. That takes some experience with debian or at least another Linux dist. I can't remember if the Debian Installer is included. There is a debian package to build a custom DFS. That is not too easy. Be sure to modprobe sk98lin for the Yukon ethernet controller used on many AMD64 motherboards because that didn't get recognized. !! We don't need no stinking modules !! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: For a fresh install you need a netinst or monolithic CD as the kernel-image udebs have not moved to sarge yet. The netboot would fail to find the modules. I'll try to test this on a few systems sometime soon. As for the installation, can DFS be used to install amd64-sarge? And for that matter, does anyone have information on DFS future plans - will we be seeing one with a newer kernel at some point? /v\ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On 11 Feb 2005, 18:06, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So anyone willing to test testing, esspecialy a fresh install, can > point apt to: > > deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib > non-free Hopefully it will be soon propagated on mirrors too. As far as I can see, debian-pure64/pool directory is still empty on bytekeeper.as28747.net Btw, many *thanks* for the great port. Keep up the good job *8) -- <@,@> Il corpo del povero cadrebbe subito in pezzi [`-'] se non fosse legato ben stretto dal filo dei sogni -"-"---Anonimo indiano -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
Giacomo Mulas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib >> non-free > > In my boxes I already have such lines pointing to sarge, plus very > high pinning priorities for testing and/or stable, which ought to > force downgrade from sid if the same package is present both in sid > and in sarge. Is this supposed to work? > > Bye > Giacomo If it is debian-pure64 then yes. If it is just pure64 then no since there sarge links to sid. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Time to test sarge
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: deb http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/debian-pure64 testing main contrib non-free In my boxes I already have such lines pointing to sarge, plus very high pinning priorities for testing and/or stable, which ought to force downgrade from sid if the same package is present both in sid and in sarge. Is this supposed to work? Bye Giacomo -- _ Giacomo Mulas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _ OSSERVATORIO ASTRONOMICO DI CAGLIARI Str. 54, Loc. Poggio dei Pini * 09012 Capoterra (CA) Tel. (OAC): +39 070 71180 248 Fax : +39 070 71180 222 Tel. (UNICA): +39 070 675 4916 _ "When the storms are raging around you, stay right where you are" (Freddy Mercury) _ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
