Re: Installing old/deprecated packages
On Lu, 06 sep 21, 16:04:29, Linux-Fan wrote: > riveravaldez writes: > > > On 9/5/21, Linux-Fan wrote: > > > > > > My personal choice would be to install the packages without adding the > > > oldstable repositories as to be reminded that they are obsolete and are > > > likely to stop working in the future. > > > > Thanks again. Very informative and educational. > > When you say 'as to be reminded that they are obsolete', how/when/where > > the system will remind me this?, will it be? > > There is no automatism for this that I am aware of. There are tools like > `deborphan` and `aptitude search ~o` that may tell you about them. In aptitude's interactive mode there is a special section for them, that only shows up if there are any. Does this count as "automatism"? :) For completeness, obsolete packages can also happen within the same release, e.g. old linux-image packages. APT is configured to keep one older version by default, the others are fair game for 'autoremove'. > The release notes recommend proactively removing obsolete packages: > > https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#for-next Yes, though some care might be needed, depending on the situation[1]. E.g. leafpad was replaced by mousepad in buster. If you just execute the 'aptitude purge ~o' aptitude might want to remove the entire LXDE environment, because the lxde metapackage in buster has 'Depends: leafpad | mousepad'. The solution in this particular case is to tell aptitude to install (and set as 'automatic') mousepad in the same run[2]. [1] Always inspect the list of proposed removals by apt/itude carefully before confirming. In case it looks wrong just ask on the list with the copy-paste of the full output. [2] There are several methods to do that, depending on your familiarity with aptitude. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Installing old/deprecated packages
riveravaldez writes: On 9/5/21, Linux-Fan wrote: > riveravaldez writes: > >> I have this `phwmon.py`[1] which I use with fluxbox to have a couple >> of system monitors at hand. It depends on some python2 packages, so >> stopped working some time ago. > > Any specific reason for preferring `phwmon.py` over a tool like `conky`? Hi, Linux-Fan, thanks a lot for your answers. `conky` is great, but you have to see the desktop to see `conky`, and I tend to work with maximized windows. Monitors like `phwmon.py` or the ones that come by default with IceWM for instance are permanently visible in the sys-tray/taskbar (no matter you're using fluxbox, openbox+tint2, etc.). That's the only reason: minimal and visible. That makes sense. In case you still want to try conky, there might be means to make it appear as a dedicated panel that is not overlapped by maximized windows, although I did not test that back when I was using Fluxbox (now on i3). See e.g. https://superuser.com/questions/565784/can-conky-remain-always-visible-alongside-other-windows https://forum.salixos.org/viewtopic.php?t=1166 [...] > There are differences: Whenever you install packages, you may not notice > that they are only avaliable in old releases because the output of > `apt-cache search` and similar tools will include old packages. Also, > running a release with stable+oldstable in sources.list is less common than > the other case: stable in sources.list and some oldstable packages leftover > from upgrades. In case bugs are fixed in the oldstable package, you will > get them automatically if you have them in sources.list. > > My personal choice would be to install the packages without adding the > oldstable repositories as to be reminded that they are obsolete and are > likely to stop working in the future. Thanks again. Very informative and educational. When you say 'as to be reminded that they are obsolete', how/when/where the system will remind me this?, will it be? There is no automatism for this that I am aware of. There are tools like `deborphan` and `aptitude search ~o` that may tell you about them. The release notes recommend proactively removing obsolete packages: https://www.debian.org/releases/bullseye/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#for-next > Be aware that libraries like `python-psutil` may not work with newer > kernels. Here (on oldstable with a backported kernel 5.10) the script would > > not run due to excess fields reported by the kernel for disk statistics: [...] Yes, indeed. I didn't mentioned it but I had to "fix" that as seen in: https://gitlab.com/o9000/phwmon/-/issues/3#note_374558691 Essentially, convert: `elif flen == 14 or flen == 18:` to `elif flen == 14 or flen == 18 or flen == 20:` In /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/psutil/_pslinux.py Supposedly shouldn't be problematic, but I'm not sure. Any comment on this? It's pretty much how I would go about it for a short-term solution. Any upgrade/reinstallation of the respective python package may revert your change. I would not mind that too much, given that there will not be any "unexpected" upgrades to the package while its repositories are not enabled in sources.list :) [...] > PS: If you are interested in my thoughts on status bars, see here: > https://masysma.lima-city.de/32/i3bar.xhtml Thanks a lot, LF! I'm checking it right now. Very interesting. You're welcome. If anything is unclear/wrong there, feel free to tell me directly via e-mail :) HTH Linux-Fan öö pgp_58R53yXQu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Installing old/deprecated packages
On 9/5/21, Linux-Fan wrote:
> riveravaldez writes:
>
>> I have this `phwmon.py`[1] which I use with fluxbox to have a couple
>> of system monitors at hand. It depends on some python2 packages, so
>> stopped working some time ago.
>
> Any specific reason for preferring `phwmon.py` over a tool like `conky`?
Hi, Linux-Fan, thanks a lot for your answers.
`conky` is great, but you have to see the desktop to see `conky`, and I
tend to work with maximized windows.
Monitors like `phwmon.py` or the ones that come by default with IceWM
for instance are permanently visible in the sys-tray/taskbar (no matter
you're using fluxbox, openbox+tint2, etc.). That's the only reason:
minimal and visible.
>> I've just made it work, installing manually (# apt-get install
>> packages.deb)
>> this packages that I've downloaded from Debian OldStable official
>> archives:
>>
>> python-psutil
>> python-is-python2 (this is in fact in Testing)
>> python-numpy
>> python-pkg-resources
>> python-cairo
>> libffi6
>> python-gobject-2
>> python-gtk2
>>
>> Therefore, my questions:
>>
>> How safe is this?
>
> IMHO it's pretty OK because that is quite similar to having upgraded from an
> old system with the legacy packages installed to a new release where they
> are no longer part of.
Thanks!
>> Is it better to install them as I did, or adding the corresponding line
>> in
>> sources.list and pull them from there? Is there any difference?
>
> There are differences: Whenever you install packages, you may not notice
> that they are only avaliable in old releases because the output of
> `apt-cache search` and similar tools will include old packages. Also,
> running a release with stable+oldstable in sources.list is less common than
> the other case: stable in sources.list and some oldstable packages leftover
> from upgrades. In case bugs are fixed in the oldstable package, you will get
> them automatically if you have them in sources.list.
>
> My personal choice would be to install the packages without adding the
> oldstable repositories as to be reminded that they are obsolete and are
> likely to stop working in the future.
Thanks again. Very informative and educational.
When you say 'as to be reminded that they are obsolete', how/when/where
the system will remind me this?, will it be?
> Be aware that libraries like `python-psutil` may not work with newer
> kernels. Here (on oldstable with a backported kernel 5.10) the script would
>
> not run due to excess fields reported by the kernel for disk statistics:
>
> | $ ./phwmon.py
> | Traceback (most recent call last):
> | File "./phwmon.py", line 341, in
> | HardwareMonitor()
> | File "./phwmon.py", line 128, in __init__
> | self.initDiskIo()
> | File "./phwmon.py", line 274, in initDiskIo
> | v = psutil.disk_io_counters(perdisk=False)
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/psutil/__init__.py", line 2131,
> in disk_io_counters
> | rawdict = _psplatform.disk_io_counters(**kwargs)
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/psutil/_pslinux.py", line 1121,
> in disk_io_counters
> | for entry in gen:
> | File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/psutil/_pslinux.py", line 1094,
> in read_procfs
> | raise ValueError("not sure how to interpret line %r" % line)
> | ValueError: not sure how to interpret line ' 259 0 nvme0n1 42428
> 17299 3905792 8439 49354 7425 3352623 15456 0 48512 26929 43429 11 476835656
> 3033 0 0\n'
Yes, indeed. I didn't mentioned it but I had to "fix" that as seen in:
https://gitlab.com/o9000/phwmon/-/issues/3#note_374558691
Essentially, convert:
`elif flen == 14 or flen == 18:`
to
`elif flen == 14 or flen == 18 or flen == 20:`
In /usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/psutil/_pslinux.py
Supposedly shouldn't be problematic, but I'm not sure. Any
comment on this?
> See also: https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=967
Thanks. Checked.
> [...]
>
>> [1] https://gitlab.com/o9000/phwmon
>
> Btw. it looks as if `python-is-python2` is not needed for this to run?
> `phwmon.py` states `python2` explicitly.
Probably, not sure. But if I'm remembering properly it was pulled as
a dependency's dependency.
> HTH
> Linux-Fan
>
> öö
>
> PS: If you are interested in my thoughts on status bars, see here:
> https://masysma.lima-city.de/32/i3bar.xhtml
Thanks a lot, LF!
I'm checking it right now. Very interesting.
Best regards.
Re: Installing old/deprecated packages
riveravaldez writes:
I have this `phwmon.py`[1] which I use with fluxbox to have a couple
of system monitors at hand. It depends on some python2 packages, so
stopped working some time ago.
Any specific reason for preferring `phwmon.py` over a tool like `conky`?
I've just made it work, installing manually (# apt-get install packages.deb)
this packages that I've downloaded from Debian OldStable official archives:
python-psutil
python-is-python2 (this is in fact in Testing)
python-numpy
python-pkg-resources
python-cairo
libffi6
python-gobject-2
python-gtk2
Therefore, my questions:
How safe is this?
IMHO it's pretty OK because that is quite similar to having upgraded from an
old system with the legacy packages installed to a new release where they
are no longer part of.
Is it better to install them as I did, or adding the corresponding line in
sources.list and pull them from there? Is there any difference?
There are differences: Whenever you install packages, you may not notice
that they are only avaliable in old releases because the output of
`apt-cache search` and similar tools will include old packages. Also,
running a release with stable+oldstable in sources.list is less common than
the other case: stable in sources.list and some oldstable packages leftover
from upgrades. In case bugs are fixed in the oldstable package, you will get
them automatically if you have them in sources.list.
My personal choice would be to install the packages without adding the
oldstable repositories as to be reminded that they are obsolete and are
likely to stop working in the future.
Be aware that libraries like `python-psutil` may not work with newer
kernels. Here (on oldstable with a backported kernel 5.10) the script would
not run due to excess fields reported by the kernel for disk statistics:
| $ ./phwmon.py
| Traceback (most recent call last):
| File "./phwmon.py", line 341, in
| HardwareMonitor()
| File "./phwmon.py", line 128, in __init__
| self.initDiskIo()
| File "./phwmon.py", line 274, in initDiskIo
| v = psutil.disk_io_counters(perdisk=False)
| File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/psutil/__init__.py", line 2131, in
disk_io_counters
| rawdict = _psplatform.disk_io_counters(**kwargs)
| File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/psutil/_pslinux.py", line 1121, in
disk_io_counters
| for entry in gen:
| File "/usr/lib/python2.7/dist-packages/psutil/_pslinux.py", line 1094, in
read_procfs
| raise ValueError("not sure how to interpret line %r" % line)
| ValueError: not sure how to interpret line ' 259 0 nvme0n1 42428 17299
3905792 8439 49354 7425 3352623 15456 0 48512 26929 43429 11 476835656 3033 0
0\n'
See also: https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=967
[...]
[1] https://gitlab.com/o9000/phwmon
Btw. it looks as if `python-is-python2` is not needed for this to run?
`phwmon.py` states `python2` explicitly.
HTH
Linux-Fan
öö
PS: If you are interested in my thoughts on status bars, see here:
https://masysma.lima-city.de/32/i3bar.xhtml
pgpGp_ovIoHsX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Installing old/deprecated packages
Hi, I have this `phwmon.py`[1] which I use with fluxbox to have a couple of system monitors at hand. It depends on some python2 packages, so stopped working some time ago. I've just made it work, installing manually (# apt-get install packages.deb) this packages that I've downloaded from Debian OldStable official archives: python-psutil python-is-python2 (this is in fact in Testing) python-numpy python-pkg-resources python-cairo libffi6 python-gobject-2 python-gtk2 Therefore, my questions: How safe is this? Is it better to install them as I did, or adding the corresponding line in sources.list and pull them from there? Is there any difference? Thanks a lot in advance and sorry (I previously asked this in another thread...) Kind regards! 1] https://gitlab.com/o9000/phwmon
