Re: [SLUG] apt-get update GPG error
Could it be that the proxy has a corrupted cache? Try clearing it. On 22 Jul 2014 14:51, David da...@kenpro.com.au wrote: On 22/07/14 14:33, Lubos Rendek wrote: Hi David, does ignoring GPG with: # apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update helps at least temporarily..? Lubos Sadly not :( root@gary:~# apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update Get:1 http://david precise Release.gpg [198 B] Get:2 http://david precise-updates Release.gpg [198 B] Get:3 http://david precise-backports Release.gpg [198 B] Get:4 http://david precise-security Release.gpg [198 B] Hit http://david precise Release Ign http://david precise Release E: GPG error: http://david precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM, David da...@kenpro.com.au wrote: I use apt-proxy several servers (no gui on any of them) on a machine called david. I'm getting the error below on any machine that's set up for auto-update, but not on machines that are manually updated. I suspect it has something to do with an attempted apt-get update while the proxy is off line, but I'm not sure. If I remove the proxy by way of editing the sources-list everything works again. Google isn't helping me find a way of getting things to work again. Any suggestions how to fix it? root@gary:~# apt-get update Get:1 http://david precise Release.gpg [198 B] Get:2 http://david precise-updates Release.gpg [198 B] Get:3 http://david precise-backports Release.gpg [198 B] Get:4 http://david precise-security Release.gpg [198 B] Hit http://david precise Release Ign http://david precise Release E: GPG error: http://david precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 -- David McQuire 0418 310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- David McQuire 0418 310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get update GPG error
On 22/07/14 18:13, Amos Shapira wrote: Could it be that the proxy has a corrupted cache? Try clearing it. Thanks.. .but At the risk of being ignorant how do I clear it short of removing the /var/cache/apt-cacher/ directory? I can't find any obvious command. If this does work, I still don't know why the apparent corruption happened so I can avoid it happening again :( On 22 Jul 2014 14:51, David da...@kenpro.com.au mailto:da...@kenpro.com.au wrote: On 22/07/14 14:33, Lubos Rendek wrote: Hi David, does ignoring GPG with: # apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update helps at least temporarily..? Lubos Sadly not :( root@gary:~# apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update Get:1 http://david precise Release.gpg [198 B] Get:2 http://david precise-updates Release.gpg [198 B] Get:3 http://david precise-backports Release.gpg [198 B] Get:4 http://david precise-security Release.gpg [198 B] Hit http://david precise Release Ign http://david precise Release E: GPG error: http://david precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM, David da...@kenpro.com.au mailto:da...@kenpro.com.au wrote: I use apt-proxy several servers (no gui on any of them) on a machine called david. I'm getting the error below on any machine that's set up for auto-update, but not on machines that are manually updated. I suspect it has something to do with an attempted apt-get update while the proxy is off line, but I'm not sure. If I remove the proxy by way of editing the sources-list everything works again. Google isn't helping me find a way of getting things to work again. Any suggestions how to fix it? root@gary:~# apt-get update Get:1 http://david precise Release.gpg [198 B] Get:2 http://david precise-updates Release.gpg [198 B] Get:3 http://david precise-backports Release.gpg [198 B] Get:4 http://david precise-security Release.gpg [198 B] Hit http://david precise Release Ign http://david precise Release E: GPG error: http://david precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 -- David McQuire 0418 310312 tel:0418%20310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- David McQuire 0418 310312 tel:0418%20310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- David McQuire 0418 310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get update GPG error
On 22/07/14 22:58, David wrote: On 22/07/14 18:13, Amos Shapira wrote: Could it be that the proxy has a corrupted cache? Try clearing it. Thanks.. .but At the risk of being ignorant how do I clear it short of removing the /var/cache/apt-cacher/ directory? I can't find any obvious command. If this does work, I still don't know why the apparent corruption happened so I can avoid it happening again :( I think apt-cacher listens on a port and you can connect to it with a web browser to fix it. see /etc/apt-cacher-ng/security.conf to set a password also try restarting the apt-cacher daemon http://david:3142/acng-report.html I had no end of problems with it, constantly had to restart it and delete/ //var/lib/apt/lists/partial/* and often /var/lib/apt/lists/* too I just use squid now, you just have to increase the maximum file size that's saved to disk so debs get saved. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get update GPG error
I use apt-proxy several servers (no gui on any of them) on a machine called david. I'm getting the error below on any machine that's set up for auto-update, but not on machines that are manually updated. I suspect it has something to do with an attempted apt-get update while the proxy is off line, but I'm not sure. If I remove the proxy by way of editing the sources-list everything works again. Google isn't helping me find a way of getting things to work again. Any suggestions how to fix it? root@gary:~# apt-get update Get:1 http://david precise Release.gpg [198 B] Get:2 http://david precise-updates Release.gpg [198 B] Get:3 http://david precise-backports Release.gpg [198 B] Get:4 http://david precise-security Release.gpg [198 B] Hit http://david precise Release Ign http://david precise Release E: GPG error: http://david precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 -- David McQuire 0418 310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get update GPG error
Hi David, does ignoring GPG with: # apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update helps at least temporarily..? Lubos On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM, David da...@kenpro.com.au wrote: I use apt-proxy several servers (no gui on any of them) on a machine called david. I'm getting the error below on any machine that's set up for auto-update, but not on machines that are manually updated. I suspect it has something to do with an attempted apt-get update while the proxy is off line, but I'm not sure. If I remove the proxy by way of editing the sources-list everything works again. Google isn't helping me find a way of getting things to work again. Any suggestions how to fix it? root@gary:~# apt-get update Get:1 http://david precise Release.gpg [198 B] Get:2 http://david precise-updates Release.gpg [198 B] Get:3 http://david precise-backports Release.gpg [198 B] Get:4 http://david precise-security Release.gpg [198 B] Hit http://david precise Release Ign http://david precise Release E: GPG error: http://david precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 -- David McQuire 0418 310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get update GPG error
On 22/07/14 14:33, Lubos Rendek wrote: Hi David, does ignoring GPG with: # apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update helps at least temporarily..? Lubos Sadly not :( root@gary:~# apt-get --allow-unauthenticated update Get:1 http://david precise Release.gpg [198 B] Get:2 http://david precise-updates Release.gpg [198 B] Get:3 http://david precise-backports Release.gpg [198 B] Get:4 http://david precise-security Release.gpg [198 B] Hit http://david precise Release Ign http://david precise Release E: GPG error: http://david precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM, David da...@kenpro.com.au wrote: I use apt-proxy several servers (no gui on any of them) on a machine called david. I'm getting the error below on any machine that's set up for auto-update, but not on machines that are manually updated. I suspect it has something to do with an attempted apt-get update while the proxy is off line, but I'm not sure. If I remove the proxy by way of editing the sources-list everything works again. Google isn't helping me find a way of getting things to work again. Any suggestions how to fix it? root@gary:~# apt-get update Get:1 http://david precise Release.gpg [198 B] Get:2 http://david precise-updates Release.gpg [198 B] Get:3 http://david precise-backports Release.gpg [198 B] Get:4 http://david precise-security Release.gpg [198 B] Hit http://david precise Release Ign http://david precise Release E: GPG error: http://david precise Release: The following signatures were invalid: NODATA 1 NODATA 2 -- David McQuire 0418 310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- David McQuire 0418 310312 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-database
Hi I have a customer who has indulged in extreme stupid stuff. root@bol04:/home/stm# dpkg -r x11vnc x11vncdata dpkg: warning: there's no installed package matching x11vnc dpkg: warning: there's no installed package matching x11vncdata but The following packages have unmet dependencies: x11vnc : Depends: x11vnc-data (= 0.9.12-1build1) but 0.9.13-1.1 is to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. So I want to scrap and rebuild the package database. All my googling says 'you don't really want to do that' I do! all the --set-selections etc options don't do anything for me Short of suggesting he climb to the top of the tower, dagga clenched between teeth ... Is there any sane (telling him to manually edit the status file is not sane!) way to recover? James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-database
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 10:21 PM, James Linder j...@tigger.ws wrote: Hi I have a customer who has indulged in extreme stupid stuff. root@bol04:/home/stm# dpkg -r x11vnc x11vncdata dpkg: warning: there's no installed package matching x11vnc dpkg: warning: there's no installed package matching x11vncdata but The following packages have unmet dependencies: x11vnc : Depends: x11vnc-data (= 0.9.12-1build1) but 0.9.13-1.1 is to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. held broken packages? I'm not sure what that means exactly, if it means they were held manually, unhold them I would suggest. I haven't fixed a broken debian package system for a while, but first I would disable any third party sources, then apt-get update. if dpkg --get-selections | grep 'hold$' is blank, then try apt-get -f install also, dpkg remove --force-depends somepackage apt-get -f install force depends to fix a broken system is fine, it's just not fine to use it to install a package on a working system though. (hello red hat of old) So I want to scrap and rebuild the package database. All my googling says 'you don't really want to do that' I do! all the --set-selections etc options don't do anything for me set selections doesn't change any packages immediately, you then have to run something to have the selections acted on, it used to be dselect, I'm not sure what it is today. Short of suggesting he climb to the top of the tower, dagga clenched between teeth ... Is there any sane (telling him to manually edit the status file is not sane!) way to recover? you can probably fix it with dpkg and apt commands. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-database
Hi James Linder wrote:, I have a customer who has indulged in extreme stupid stuff. ... So I want to scrap and rebuild the package database. ... Is there any sane (telling him to manually edit the status file is not sane!) way to recover? It may not be sane, but it's probably better than trying to scrap and rebuild the package database... I'm not even sure that's a thing, much less a sane thing. You don't even need to edit much in there, just go to the x11vnc package and take x11vnc-data out of the Depends / Recommends line (and possibly vice versa as well). Once you break the loop, dpkg and even apt will start working again. You can then use them to --reinstall the packages that are broken. Jiri -- Jiří Baum j...@baum.com.au Sabik Software Solutions Pty Ltd 0413 183 117 http://www.baum.com.au/sabik -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get purge aftger apt-get remove
I believe you can also do it using Synaptic: Status--Not Inastalled (residual config) You can mark individual or all packages there (Crtl+a) and then choose Mark for complete removal from context menu (right mouse button) Dmitry. 2009/10/28 pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au: Hi, I've done apt-get remove to get rid of some packages, but I should have done apt-get remove --purge. How do I get rid of the config file droppings all over my system? (I know I can do: apt-get install pkg; apt-get remove --purge pkg but if the number and locations of config files have changed, this isn't guaranteed to clean everything out) Peter C -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get purge aftger apt-get remove
Hi, I've done apt-get remove to get rid of some packages, but I should have done apt-get remove --purge. How do I get rid of the config file droppings all over my system? (I know I can do: apt-get install pkg; apt-get remove --purge pkg but if the number and locations of config files have changed, this isn't guaranteed to clean everything out) Peter C -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get purge aftger apt-get remove
pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au writes:
I've done apt-get remove to get rid of some packages, but I should have done
apt-get remove --purge. How do I get rid of the config file droppings all
over my system?
dpkg --list | grep ^rc
# sudo dpkg --purge $(dpkg --list | grep ^rc | awk '{print $2}')
Regards,
daniel
--
✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707
♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
Looking for work? Love Perl? In Melbourne, Australia? We are hiring.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get purge aftger apt-get remove
On 28/10/2009, at 9:35 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au writes:
I've done apt-get remove to get rid of some packages, but I should
have done
apt-get remove --purge. How do I get rid of the config file
droppings all
over my system?
dpkg --list | grep ^rc
# sudo dpkg --purge $(dpkg --list | grep ^rc | awk '{print $2}')
What a waste, piping grep to awk. I suppose you also eat kittens?
sudo dpkg --purge $(dpkg --list | awk '/^rc/ {print $2}')
--
http://chesterton.id.au/blog/
http://barrang.com.au/linux/
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get purge aftger apt-get remove
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 09:51:34PM +1100, Michael Chesterton wrote:
On 28/10/2009, at 9:35 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au writes:
I've done apt-get remove to get rid of some packages, but I should
have done apt-get remove --purge. How do I get rid of the config
file droppings all over my system?
dpkg --list | grep ^rc
# sudo dpkg --purge $(dpkg --list | grep ^rc | awk '{print $2}')
What a waste, piping grep to awk. I suppose you also eat kittens?
sudo dpkg --purge $(dpkg --list | awk '/^rc/ {print $2}')
get rid of awk (too big on tiny machines):
dpkg -P $( dpkg -l | while read a; do if [[ $a =~ ^rc ]]; then a=${a// / };
a=${a#* }; echo ${a%% *}; fi; done )
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get purge aftger apt-get remove
Michael Chesterton che...@chesterton.id.au writes:
On 28/10/2009, at 9:35 PM, Daniel Pittman wrote:
pe...@chubb.wattle.id.au writes:
I've done apt-get remove to get rid of some packages, but I should have
done
apt-get remove --purge. How do I get rid of the config file droppings all
over my system?
dpkg --list | grep ^rc
# sudo dpkg --purge $(dpkg --list | grep ^rc | awk '{print $2}')
What a waste, piping grep to awk. I suppose you also eat kittens?
sudo dpkg --purge $(dpkg --list | awk '/^rc/ {print $2}')
I hang my head in shame. I can't believe I didn't spot that myself, even if I
wrote that off the top of my head. :/
Daniel
--
✣ Daniel Pittman✉ dan...@rimspace.net☎ +61 401 155 707
♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
Looking for work? Love Perl? In Melbourne, Australia? We are hiring.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get public key problem
david wrote: da...@david:~$ sudo apt-get install ubuntu-keyring [sudo] password for david: da...@david:~$ sudo apt-get install ubuntu-keyring [sudo] password for david: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done ubuntu-keyring is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. Ah, hang on, the key you're looking for A0DEA09F895F7630 is not a regular Ubuntu key, but rather is this: gpg: key 895F7630: public key Launchpad PPA for Rawstudio which is proably due to this part of your sources.list file: deb http://fileserver:3142/ppa.launchpad.net/rawstudio/ppa/ubuntu intrepid main deb http://fileserver:3142/ppa.launchpad.net/mscore-ubuntu/ppa/ubuntu intrepid main The solution here is to grab the key using gpg: gpg --recv A0DEA09F895F7630 which resulted in the following output: gpg: requesting key 895F7630 from hkp server wwwkeys.pgp.net gpg: key 895F7630: public key Launchpad PPA for Rawstudio imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 (RSA: 1) Then if you decide to trust the key do: gpg --export A0DEA09F895F7630 | sudo apt-get add - HTH, Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get public key problem
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: Then if you decide to trust the key do: gpg --export A0DEA09F895F7630 | sudo apt-get add - And then do 'apt-get update' again. Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get public key problem
I've started getting this message when doing apt-get update (fileserver being the hostname of a local apt cache): W: GPG error: http://fileserver intrepid Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY A0DEA09F895F7630 I've seen this message before when adding repositories without a key, but I can't figure out what intrepid Release is specifically referring to. thanks... David. da...@david:~$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list deb http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid main restricted deb-src http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid main restricted deb http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid-updates main restricted deb-src http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid-updates main restricted deb http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid universe deb-src http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid universe deb http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid-updates universe deb-src http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid-updates universe deb http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid multiverse deb-src http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid multiverse deb http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid-updates multiverse deb-src http://fileserver:3142/au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid-updates multiverse deb http://fileserver:3142/security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu intrepid-security main restricted deb-src http://fileserver:3142/security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu intrepid-security main restricted deb http://fileserver:3142/security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu intrepid-security universe deb-src http://fileserver:3142/security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu intrepid-security universe deb http://fileserver:3142/security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu intrepid-security multiverse deb-src http://fileserver:3142/security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu intrepid-security multiverse deb http://fileserver:3142/ppa.launchpad.net/rawstudio/ppa/ubuntu intrepid main deb http://fileserver:3142/ppa.launchpad.net/mscore-ubuntu/ppa/ubuntu intrepid main -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get public key problem
david wrote: I've seen this message before when adding repositories without a key, but I can't figure out what intrepid Release is specifically referring to. This is referring to the GPG signed Release file that tells the apt-get client what is in the release. Usually this can be solved by doing : sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install ubuntu-keyring Erik -- -- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get public key problem
Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: david wrote: I've seen this message before when adding repositories without a key, but I can't figure out what intrepid Release is specifically referring to. This is referring to the GPG signed Release file that tells the apt-get client what is in the release. Usually this can be solved by doing : sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install ubuntu-keyring da...@david:~$ sudo apt-get install ubuntu-keyring [sudo] password for david: da...@david:~$ sudo apt-get install ubuntu-keyring [sudo] password for david: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done ubuntu-keyring is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded. :( David. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get update hangs
# apt-get update snip Get:7 http://fileserver intrepid/non-free Packages [12.6kB] Ign http://fileserver.domain intrepid/restricted Translation-en_AU Ign http://fileserver.domain intrepid/universe Translation-en_AU Ign http://fileserver.domain intrepid/multiverse Translation-en_AU 99% [Waiting for headers] snip at which point it will hang apparently waiting for something to time out. fileserver.domain is our local network apt-cache server it does this a few times during each update, but eventually finishes apparently successfully. Any suggestions what is causing it to hang? thanks David. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get update hangs
Kelvin Nicholson wrote: David: I was noticing the exact same thing last night with my cache server. Double check DNS is ok on the cache server, and do an apt-get update on it. Don't know if this will help, but just a suggestion. Thanks... Mark Knowles' suggestion to do: unset LANG LANGUAGE did the trick. I'm not sure what other effects it might have though. Any? On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 07:55:47 +1100 (EST), da...@kenpro.com.au wrote: # apt-get update snip Get:7 http://fileserver intrepid/non-free Packages [12.6kB] Ign http://fileserver.domain intrepid/restricted Translation-en_AU Ign http://fileserver.domain intrepid/universe Translation-en_AU Ign http://fileserver.domain intrepid/multiverse Translation-en_AU 99% [Waiting for headers] snip ... at which point it will hang apparently waiting for something to time out. fileserver.domain is our local network apt-cache server it does this a few times during each update, but eventually finishes apparently successfully. Any suggestions what is causing it to hang? thanks David. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get install problem
Hi, I have had a problem installing new packages in an etch/lenny system for a week or two. Have repository gpg scripts been changed ? Is there a wider problem ? I've attached todays 'apt-get upgrade' output below. Synaptic tells me The repository may no longer be available or could not be contacted because of network problems. If available an older version of the failed index will be used. Otherwise the repository will be ignored. Check your network connection and ensure the repository address in the preferences is correct. Adam Bogacki, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tohunga:~# apt-get upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages have been kept back: abiword-common abiword-help abiword-plugins gpm The following packages will be upgraded: acpid libncurses5 libncurses5-dev libncursesw5 ncurses-base ncurses-bin ncurses-term 7 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded. 29 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 6133kB of archives. After this operation, 0B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? Get:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org testing/main libgnomevfs2-common 1:2.22.0-4 [1180kB] Get:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org testing/main gnome-screensaver 2.22.2-1 [1888kB] Get:3 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main ncurses-bin 5.6+20080920-1 [136kB] Get:4 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main libncurses5-dev 5.6+20080920-1 [1526kB] Get:5 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main libncurses5 5.6+20080920-1 [334kB] Get:6 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main ncurses-base 5.6+20080920-1 [174kB] Get:7 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main libncursesw5 5.6+20080920-1 [356kB] Get:8 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main ncurses-term 5.6+20080920-1 [507kB] Get:9 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/main acpid 1.0.6-12 [31.9kB] Fetched 6133kB in 35s (172kB/s) Reading package fields... Done Reading package status... Done Retrieving bug reports... Done Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done Reading changelogs... Done (Reading database ... 333980 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace libgnomevfs2-common 1:2.22.0-4 (using .../libgnomevfs2-common_1%3a2.22.0-4_all.deb) ... Unpacking replacement libgnomevfs2-common ... dpkg: warning - old post-removal script returned error exit status 127 dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libgnomevfs2-common_1%3a2.22.0-4_all.deb (--unpack): subprocess new post-removal script returned error exit status 127 dpkg: error while cleaning up: subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127 Preparing to replace gnome-screensaver 2.22.2-1 (using .../gnome-screensaver_2.22.2-1_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement gnome-screensaver ... dpkg: warning - old post-removal script returned error exit status 127 dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ... dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/gnome-screensaver_2.22.2-1_i386.deb (--unpack): subprocess new post-removal script returned error exit status 127 dpkg: error while cleaning up: subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 127 Preparing to replace ncurses-bin 5.6+20080913-1 (using .../ncurses-bin_5.6+20080920-1_i386.deb) ... Unpacking replacement ncurses-bin ... Processing triggers for man-db ... Errors were encountered while processing: /var/cache/apt/archives/libgnomevfs2-common_1%3a2.22.0-4_all.deb /var/cache/apt/archives/gnome-screensaver_2.22.2-1_i386.deb E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) Tohunga:~# -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get issue
Hey guys, just wondering if anyone can help with this issue... I have a brand new debain (sarge) install. I have been trying to get some stuff installed.. my /etc/apt/sources file looks like... #deb file:///cdrom/ sarge main #deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main #deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main ##stable# deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ stable main contrib non-free deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/ stable/non-US main non-free #security deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main contrib non-free #testing #deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main contrib non-free #deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/ testing/non-US main non-free # Unstable #deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free # deb-src http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free #deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US/ unstable/non-US main non-free - I have commented out most lines to try and source the prob... Whenever I uncomment the lines for the testing repositories I get this error E: Dynamic MMap ran out of room E: Error occured while processing liblablgtksourceview-ocaml (NewVersion1) E: Problem with MergeList /var/lib/apt/lists/http.us.debian.org_debian_dists_testing_main_binary-i386_Packages E: The package lists or status file could not be parsed or opened. Im at a loss to understand why... I googled this up which told me to add the line APT::Cache-Limit 8388608; to my /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf This hasn't solved it... Anyone else have any thoughts? Thanks for anyhelp you can provide Charles. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get issue
Charles Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Im at a loss to understand why... I googled this up which told me to add the line APT::Cache-Limit 8388608; to my /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/70debconf This hasn't solved it... Try a bigger number, my google suggests 12582912, but keep increasing it until it works ;) http://rwxii.bitblaster.com/k/11-1-1-031211102449/permlink.hptb -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt Translation-en_AU
On 1/14/07, Sonia Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 11:05:03PM +1100, Michael Fox wrote: unset LANG LANGUAGE And then run the apt-get and it will show no errors. I then found where LANG and LANGUAGE is set in my environment logon and removed them. Thanks heaps, that fixed the problem. I guess based on the following email I should set LANG/LANGUAGE to en_GB. I did some testing on the weekend and with the install I did several times, I found that it made no difference. apt-get update (still reported that the Translation blah) to be on the end of various lines when attempting to use apt-get. Only fix unset LANG LANGUAGE. Would love to know why it does it, rather then use the workaround. It only happens on Edgy too. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt Translation-en_AU
* On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:19:25AM +1100, Michael Fox wrote: Thanks heaps, that fixed the problem. I guess based on the following email I should set LANG/LANGUAGE to en_GB. I did some testing on the weekend and with the install I did several times, I found that it made no difference. apt-get update (still reported that the Translation blah) to be on the end of various lines when attempting to use apt-get. Only fix unset LANG LANGUAGE. I've also found that changing locale to en_GB has no effect on apt-get update; only LANG= works. Is this a bug or a PEBKAC? On a related issue, what's the canonical way of changing a locale on a machine? Using the login screen, or editing /etc/environment and/or /etc/default/locale? -- Sonia Hamilton. GPG key A8B77238. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt Translation-en_AU
On Ubuntu Edgy I notice that when I do an 'apt-get update' I get messages like this: Get:1 http://au.archive.ubuntu.com edgy Release.gpg [191B] Ign http://au.archive.ubuntu.com edgy/main Translation-en_AU ^^^^ My entry in sources.list is: deb http://au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ edgy main restricted universe multiverse Are the 'Ign' messages a problem? And what does 'Translation-en_AU' have to do with updates? -- Sonia Hamilton. GPG key A8B77238. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt Translation-en_AU
On 13/01/2007, at 10:29 PM, Sonia Hamilton wrote: On Ubuntu Edgy I notice that when I do an 'apt-get update' I get messages like this: Get:1 http://au.archive.ubuntu.com edgy Release.gpg [191B] Ign http://au.archive.ubuntu.com edgy/main Translation-en_AU ^^^^ My entry in sources.list is: deb http://au.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ edgy main restricted universe multiverse Are the 'Ign' messages a problem? And what does 'Translation-en_AU' have to do with updates? I had the same problem some weeks back and found no reason why it did this for some people and not others. However I did find a fix or atleast a work around to resolve it. It's like the info in the sources.list has extra characters, but it don't. Let me see if I can dig up the work around, I remember it was a matter of changing a file. Will post back shortly.. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt Translation-en_AU
On 13/01/2007, at 10:29 PM, Sonia Hamilton wrote: Translation-en_AU And it appears this is the post I made about it, http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php? t=286745highlight=Translation-en unset LANG LANGUAGE And then run the apt-get and it will show no errors. I then found where LANG and LANGUAGE is set in my environment logon and removed them. It appears others have this problem for various locales, but it doesn't happen for everyone though, which is odd. Catchya -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt Translation-en_AU
On Saturday 13 January 2007 22:29, Sonia Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Ubuntu Edgy I notice that when I do an 'apt-get update' I get messages like this: Get:1 http://au.archive.ubuntu.com edgy Release.gpg [191B] Ign http://au.archive.ubuntu.com edgy/main Translation-en_AU ^^^^ Don't use the Australian (en_AU) translation of Ubuntu. Use the British (en_GB) one. I'm an admin of the Ubuntu en_GB team. It is essentially a 100% translation. We've recruited the en_AU translators to focus on one unified translation. In other words, the en_AU translation is currently stagnant. Details are at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EnglishTranslation -- The new version - it's not there to fix bugs. That's not the reason we come up with a new version. - Bill Gates, FOCUS Magazine, no. 43, 1995 pgpyfwAVYQ3xz.pgp Description: PGP signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt Translation-en_AU
* On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 11:05:03PM +1100, Michael Fox wrote: unset LANG LANGUAGE And then run the apt-get and it will show no errors. I then found where LANG and LANGUAGE is set in my environment logon and removed them. Thanks heaps, that fixed the problem. I guess based on the following email I should set LANG/LANGUAGE to en_GB. * On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 11:39:11PM +1100, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: Don't use the Australian (en_AU) translation of Ubuntu. Use the British (en_GB) one. I'm an admin of the Ubuntu en_GB team. It is essentially a 100% translation. We've recruited the en_AU translators to focus on one unified translation. In other words, the en_AU translation is currently stagnant. Details are at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EnglishTranslation Nice, thankyou, that makes sense now. Good to see non-yank English being promoted :-) -- Sonia Hamilton. GPG key A8B77238. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt- bittorrent
I am sure someone has thought about this. Why don't we have apt-bittorrent. I would be happy to participate if the setup could be set so I could permanently seed any packages in my package directory with my off-peak data rate and rational throttling. Ubuntu / debian provides the tracker and a seed, and then the swarm takes over and if you wanted to mirror, eg Optus, you simply become a seed yourself. The apt tracker would have entries for every valid package (valid being stable, testing, unstable) you would simply connect to the 'known' tracker for that package and BT download it. -- Ken Foskey FOSS developer -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt- bittorrent
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 01:02:07AM +1100, Ken Foskey wrote: I am sure someone has thought about this. Yes, I know Shehjar (cc'd) has thought about it an implemented a version; I'm sure he'd love to talk about it :) -i -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt- bittorrent
Ken Foskey wrote: I am sure someone has thought about this. Why don't we have apt-bittorrent. I would be happy to participate if the setup could be set so I could permanently seed any packages in my package directory with my off-peak data rate and rational throttling. Ubuntu / debian provides the tracker and a seed, and then the swarm takes over and if you wanted to mirror, eg Optus, you simply become a seed yourself. The apt tracker would have entries for every valid package (valid being stable, testing, unstable) you would simply connect to the 'known' tracker for that package and BT download it. I believe this has been discussed before I even brought it up a while ago on irc. I think from that discussion someone said it was possibly being worked on, but having the trackers also be seeders would be a good idea. Or you could look at for the time being apt-mirror or apt-proxy -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt- bittorrent
Ken Foskey wrote: Why don't we have apt-bittorrent. I would be happy to participate if the setup could be set so I could permanently seed any packages in my package directory with my off-peak data rate and rational throttling. Ubuntu / debian provides the tracker and a seed, and then the swarm takes over and if you wanted to mirror, eg Optus, you simply become a seed yourself. But any of those seeds could insert a trojan in a deb. The apt tracker would have entries for every valid package (valid being stable, testing, unstable) you would simply connect to the 'known' tracker for that package and BT download it. It would also have to do checksums and to so this it must refer back to a central trusted repository. Mike -- Michael Lake Computational Research Support Unit Science Faculty, UTS Ph: 9514 2238 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt- bittorrent
Only the .torrent file needs to be trusted. It contains a SHA-1 hash for each of the pieces it would expect to download. As long as the .torrent is signed by say the Debian or Ubuntu key you should be right. Any pieces sent by bogus seeds will be rejected. It's funny - I was talking about exactly this idea with my son on the weekend. (Maybe someone should check whether a patent application has already gone in for this one :-) Martin On 11/8/06, Michael Lake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ken Foskey wrote: Why don't we have apt-bittorrent. I would be happy to participate if the setup could be set so I could permanently seed any packages in my package directory with my off-peak data rate and rational throttling. Ubuntu / debian provides the tracker and a seed, and then the swarm takes over and if you wanted to mirror, eg Optus, you simply become a seed yourself. But any of those seeds could insert a trojan in a deb. The apt tracker would have entries for every valid package (valid being stable, testing, unstable) you would simply connect to the 'known' tracker for that package and BT download it. It would also have to do checksums and to so this it must refer back to a central trusted repository. Mike -- Michael Lake Computational Research Support Unit Science Faculty, UTS Ph: 9514 2238 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html -- Regards, Martin Martin Visser -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt- bittorrent
Hi all Ken Foskey wrote: I am sure someone has thought about this. The two implementations that I know of, are: 1. apt-torrent: Available at http://sianka.free.fr/. This one seems to be under active development as compared to my work below. I havent gone into much detail with this one, but it does seem to work, and work for a few hundred deb packages, as the FAQ page says. It should be worth checking out. 2. bat-get: Available here http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~shehjart/download/bat-get.tar.bz2 Developed way back in 2004. The main aim was to be able to seed thousands of deb packages on the scale of a real http/ftp based repositories. I did succeed to an extent, that the updates happened just fine, but the seeder could not scale beyond a few thousand packages. I do have a design in mind to fix this but not the time, well, not for the next 2 months anyway. The difference between the two implementations is the way they run the tracker/seeders/clients. Apt-torrent has a more attractive design for regular users because it does not need any new client/frontend for getting the deb packages, one can continue using the apt-get/aptitude. It only changes the way interactions happen in the background, i.e. p2p interactions between the client, tracker, seeder, etc. Whereas my approach requires using a new command line tool call bat-get which could be an issue for most. bat-get doesnt have a web page for reference but theres a detailed text document in bat-get tarball which explains the design,setup, etc. Shehjar -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get upgrade problems
Simon, Thanks for the suggestions - I however uninstalled netbase and then reinstalled all the packages listed - that seemed to fix the issue. Thanks for replying to my message though - nice to know there are people who are willing to help out just because they can... Thanks again ! Trent Murray T: 0419 39 99 78 F: 02 9543 7654 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]received direct to mobile phone M: P.O Box 3269 Bangor NSW 2234 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get upgrade problems
On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 18:08 +1100, T Murray wrote: Yesterday did the usual # apt-get update # apt-get dist-upgrade and have been receiving the following error ever since... Anyone got some ideas of how i can resolve this issue: In general, if things go a little awry during package updates try using apt-get -f install and dpkg --configure -a to try and recover the situation. -- Simon Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get upgrade problems
Hi all, Yesterday did the usual # apt-get update # apt-get dist-upgrade and have been receiving the following error ever since... Anyone got some ideas of how i can resolve this issue: wutang:/home/trent# apt-get dist-upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Calculating upgrade... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. 12 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y Setting up openbsd-inetd (0.20050402-3) ... Starting internet superserver: inetdinvoke-rc.d: initscript openbsd-inetd, action start failed. dpkg: error processing openbsd-inetd (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of netbase: netbase depends on openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver; however: Package openbsd-inetd is not configured yet. Package inet-superserver is not installed. Package openbsd-inetd which provides inet-superserver is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing netbase (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of nfs-common: nfs-common depends on netbase (= 4.24); however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing nfs-common (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Setting up fam (2.7.0-11) ... Starting file alteration monitor: FAMinvoke-rc.d: initscript fam, action start failed. dpkg: error processing fam (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libapache2-mod-perl2: libapache2-mod-perl2 depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing libapache2-mod-perl2 (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of nfs-kernel-server: nfs-kernel-server depends on nfs-common (= 1:1.0.8-1); however: Package nfs-common is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing nfs-kernel-server (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of ntp: ntp depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing ntp (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of ntp-simple: ntp-simple depends on ntp (= 1:4.2.2+dfsg.2-2); however: Package ntp is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing ntp-simple (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of ntpdate: ntpdate depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing ntpdate (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of samba: samba depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing samba (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of smbfs: smbfs depends on netbase (= 2.02); however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing smbfs (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of swat: swat depends on samba (= 3.0.23c-2); however: Package samba is not configured yet. swat depends on netbase; however: Package netbase is not configured yet. dpkg: error processing swat (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing: openbsd-inetd netbase nfs-common fam libapache2-mod-perl2 nfs-kernel-server ntp ntp-simple ntpdate samba smbfs swat E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) wutang:/home/trent# -- Regards, Trent Murray T: 0419 39 99 78 F: 02 9543 7654 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]received direct to mobile phone M: P.O Box 3269 Bangor NSW 2234 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt questions - apt-cacher and /var/cache/apt/archives
Do the packages in /var/cache/apt/archives represent all the installed packages on a standard Ubuntu system? Can I use this as input to apt-cacher for the purposes of subsequently updating another box? Eg, breezy to dapper. thanks... David. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt questions - apt-cacher and /var/cache/apt/archives
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 23:03 +1000, david wrote: Do the packages in /var/cache/apt/archives represent all the installed packages on a standard Ubuntu system? Unless you've removed packages, the contents of /var/cache/apt/archives represent every single package ever installed on that system, regardless of whether a package was subsequently removed, or replaced by an updated version. apt-get has a couple of commands for managing the package cache. apt-get clean will clear out the cache completely. autoclean is a little more intelligent. Check the apt-get man page for details. Can I use this as input to apt-cacher for the purposes of subsequently updating another box? Eg, breezy to dapper. I guess you could seed apt-cacher with the contents of one machine's package cache, yeah. But I've never used apt-cacher. :-) -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt questions - apt-cacher and /var/cache/apt/archives
On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 23:27 +1000, Peter Hardy wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 23:03 +1000, david wrote: Do the packages in /var/cache/apt/archives represent all the installed packages on a standard Ubuntu system? Unless you've removed packages, the contents of /var/cache/apt/archives represent every single package ever installed on that system, regardless of whether a package was subsequently removed, or replaced by an updated version. apt-get has a couple of commands for managing the package cache. apt-get clean will clear out the cache completely. autoclean is a little more intelligent. Check the apt-get man page for details. Thanks for that. From the man page: autoclean snip APT::Clean-Installed will prevent installed packages from being erased if it is set to off. How do I set APT::Clean-Installed? Google hasn't helped :( Is this what I'm looking for? Can I use this as input to apt-cacher for the purposes of subsequently updating another box? Eg, breezy to dapper. I guess you could seed apt-cacher with the contents of one machine's package cache, yeah. But I've never used apt-cacher. :-) -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt questions - apt-cacher and /var/cache/apt/archives
$quoted_author = david ; Do the packages in /var/cache/apt/archives represent all the installed packages on a standard Ubuntu system? Can I use this as input to apt-cacher for the purposes of subsequently updating another box? Eg, breezy to dapper. try `aptitude autoclean` or `apt-get autoclean` if you don't have any network level apt caching then i would rsync /var/cache/apt/archives from the upgraded box to the to-be-upgraded box if you are trying to sync installed packages, use `dpkg --get-selections` on both and diff them. cheers marty -- xterm The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself? http://www.bash.org/?4753 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt questions - apt-cacher and /var/cache/apt/archives
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 07:52 +1000, david wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 23:27 +1000, Peter Hardy wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 23:03 +1000, david wrote: Do the packages in /var/cache/apt/archives represent all the installed packages on a standard Ubuntu system? Unless you've removed packages, the contents of /var/cache/apt/archives represent every single package ever installed on that system, regardless of whether a package was subsequently removed, or replaced by an updated version. apt-get has a couple of commands for managing the package cache. apt-get clean will clear out the cache completely. autoclean is a little more intelligent. Check the apt-get man page for details. Thanks for that. From the man page: autoclean snip APT::Clean-Installed will prevent installed packages from being erased if it is set to off. How do I set APT::Clean-Installed? Google hasn't helped :( Is this what I'm looking for? I'm not sure. What are you looking for? :-) That needs to be in apt's config file, /etc/apt/apt.conf . You'd want to add APT::Clean-Installed false; From the apt.conf manpage: Clean-Installed Defaults to on. When turned on the autoclean feature will remove any packages which can no longer be downloaded from the cache. If turned off then packages that are locally installed are also excluded from cleaning - but note that APT provides no direct means to reinstall them. It looks like turning it off will leave you with a cache that slightly more accurately represents the packages that are installed on a machine after doing an autoclean. But if you're looking to mirror the installed package list on the box you're upgrading, you'd want to do something like: - On the first machine, run dpkg --get-selections packagelist to get the status of all installed (and removed) packages. - Transfer packagelist to the second machine and run dpkg --set-selections packagelist to set the desired status of all of those packages. - Run apt-get dselect-upgrade , which will then go about installing/removing things to change desired status to actual status. Cheers, -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt questions - apt-cacher and /var/cache/apt/archives
Top posting because I'm re-explaining the problem, and btw, I've searched debian.org and google and can't seem to find the answers to any of these questions: I've found a thing called apt-cacher which looks like a nice simple way to locally cache packages for upgrading other boxes. I've installed it on my main desktop box, which had already been updated to Dapper. I want to seed apt-cacher so that I can use it as a source.list for other upgrades. I think that means that I need to seed it with all the currently installed Dapper packages, but presumably NOT any old packages. so... I'm thinking I should do: #apt-get autoclean -o APT::Clean-Installed=off #cp /var/cache/apt/archives/* /var/cache/apt-cacher/import/ #/usr/share/apt-cacher/apt-cacher-import.pl then change my other boxes sources lists to point to apt-cacher on this box - voila! It sounds easy, but it also looks like a great way to screw up a perfectly good install, so I'm looking for some advice/confirmation :) many thanks... David PS: I notice that apt.conf is now apt.conf.d/ but I can't find any description of how the various files work, or if there is a precedence etc etc. Is there a howto or whatever? On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 10:18 +1000, Peter Hardy wrote: On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 07:52 +1000, david wrote: On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 23:27 +1000, Peter Hardy wrote:/usr/share/apt-cacher/apt-cacher-import.pl On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 23:03 +1000, david wrote: Do the packages in /var/cache/apt/archives represent all the installed packages on a standard Ubuntu system? Unless you've removed packages, the contents of /var/cache/apt/archives represent every single package ever installed on that system, regardless of whether a package was subsequently removed, or replaced by an updated version. apt-get has a couple of commands for managing the package cache. apt-get clean will clear out the cache completely. autoclean is a little more intelligent. Check the apt-get man page for details. Thanks for that. From the man page: autoclean snip APT::Clean-Installed will prevent installed packages from being erased if it is set to off. How do I set APT::Clean-Installed? Google hasn't helped :( Is this what I'm looking for? I'm not sure. What are you looking for? :-) /usr/share/apt-cacher/apt-cacher-import.pl That needs to be in apt's config file, /etc/apt/apt.conf . You'd want to add APT::Clean-Installed false; From the apt.conf manpage: Clean-Installed Defaults to on. When turned on the autoclean feature will remove any packages which can no longer be downloaded from the cache. If turned off then packages that are locally installed are also excluded from cleaning - but note that APT provides no direct means to reinstall them. It looks like turning it off will leave you with a cache that slightly more accurately represents the packages that are installed on a machine after doing an autoclean. But if you're looking to mirror the installed package list on the box you're upgrading, you'd want to do something like: - On the first machine, run dpkg --get-selections packagelist to get the status of all installed (and removed) packages. - Transfer packagelist to the second machine and run dpkg --set-selections packagelist to set the desired status of all of those packages. - Run apt-get dselect-upgrade , which will then go about installing/removing things to change desired status to actual status. Cheers, -- Pete -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get update and pgp keys
On Thu Apr 13, Ian Wienand wrote: On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:10:10PM +1000, Steve Kowalik wrote: I doubt the key in question is on the keyservers. It's located at http://ftp-master.debian.org/ziyi_key_2006.asc Or just install the debian-archive-keyring package Thanks Ian, I had installed the debian-keyring package whereas what I needed was the debian-archive-keyring package. I think the problem is now fixed. Mike -- Mike Lake Caver, Linux enthusiast and interested in anything technical. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get update and pgp keys
Hi all I'm trying to get correct keys into the debian keyring so that I can verify packages from apt-get sources and I'm having some problems. The procedure below was worked out by googling on the warning message from apt-get. Basically one needs to find some site that has a key for the missing packages I presume. ~$ sudo apt-get update Get:1 http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au testing Release.gpg [189B] Hit http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au testing Release Ign http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au testing Release Hit http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au testing/main Packages Get:2 http://ftp.wa.au.debian.org testing Release.gpg [189B] Hit http://ftp.wa.au.debian.org testing Release etc Reading package lists... Done W: GPG error: http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au testing Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 010908312D230C5F W: GPG error: http://ftp.wa.au.debian.org testing Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 010908312D230C5F W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems So I look for keyservers like this: ~$ host -l pgp.net | grep www !!! keys.at.pgp.net MX host li04.adis.at does not exist www.at.pgp.net. A 195.64.0.35 www.au.pgp.net. A 128.232.0.23 binwww.pgp.net. A 128.232.0.23 pick one . ~$ gpg --keyserver http://www.au.pgp.net --recv-keys 010908312D230C5F gpg: requesting key 2D230C5F from http server www.au.pgp.net gpgkeys: key 010908312D230C5F not found on keyserver gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found. gpg: Total number processed: 0 If it was found I'd then do this: $ gpg --export -a 2D230C5F | sudo apt-key add - $ apt-get update What am I doing wrong ? I have tried a few keyservers but all reply with the same message. -- Mike Lake Caver, Linux enthusiast and interested in anything technical. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get update and pgp keys
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:11:22 +1000, Michael Lake uttered I'm trying to get correct keys into the debian keyring so that I can verify packages from apt-get sources and I'm having some problems. The procedure below was worked out by googling on the warning message from apt-get. Basically one needs to find some site that has a key for the missing packages I presume. Correct. What am I doing wrong ? I have tried a few keyservers but all reply with the same message. I doubt the key in question is on the keyservers. It's located at http://ftp-master.debian.org/ziyi_key_2006.asc Don't ask about the name, elmo has a fascination with actresses. Cheers, -- Steve Why does everyone say 'Relax' when they're about to do something terrible? - Ensign Harry Kim, USS Voyager -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get update and pgp keys
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:10:10PM +1000, Steve Kowalik wrote: I doubt the key in question is on the keyservers. It's located at http://ftp-master.debian.org/ziyi_key_2006.asc Or just install the debian-archive-keyring package -i signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 15:29, Michael Guy wrote: try this if you havent got it already set up wget http://amd64.debian.net/archive.key apt-key add archive.key then apt-get install blah hopefully that should work out for you. Which is what I have now done and which did the trick. Many thanks to Michael for the simple, straight forward advice. And likewise to everyone else for the entertaining and amusing subsequent flamewar. I always wanted to start one of them on the SLUG List; my satisfaction is complete. -- David It's time to reconsider your thoughts about the iron carbon double diagram. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
O Plameras wrote: I have Fedora Core 4. This is what I do the first time I got a similar error. As root I do, # rpm --import http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora You should get the key directly from the Red Hat or Debian site. The whole purpose of the key is to allow you to verify that the mirror hasn't altered the package. Fetching the key from the mirror where you downloaded the software allows the mirror site to feed you altered packages. Cheers, Glen -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
Glen Turner wrote: O Plameras wrote: I have Fedora Core 4. This is what I do the first time I got a similar error. As root I do, # rpm --import http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora You should get the key directly from the Red Hat or Debian site. The whole purpose of the key is to allow you to verify that the mirror hasn't altered the package. The idea of the GPG-KEY is the file downloaded has not been changed in transit. Fetching the key from the mirror where you downloaded the software allows the mirror site to feed you altered packages. The idea that mirror sites alters files that they served is absurd. Espousing such idea undermines the system. Cheers, Glen -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
On Monday 12 September 2005 08:55, O Plameras wrote: Glen Turner wrote: O Plameras wrote: I have Fedora Core 4. This is what I do the first time I got a similar error. As root I do, # rpm --import http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/RPM-GPG-K EY-fedora You should get the key directly from the Red Hat or Debian site. The whole purpose of the key is to allow you to verify that the mirror hasn't altered the package. The idea of the GPG-KEY is the file downloaded has not been changed in transit. Rolls eyes The chances of a GPG-KEY being altered in transit by a man-in-the-middle type attack when fetching the key from its original location is a far more remote possibility than a GPG-KEY on a mirror being altered for malicious reasons etc. Glen is 100% spot-on. Fetching the key from the mirror where you downloaded the software allows the mirror site to feed you altered packages. The idea that mirror sites alters files that they served is absurd. Espousing such idea undermines the system. No, actually, your idea undermines the whole system. What if I hijack someone's DNS (like planetmirror or pacific internet or aarnet) then start spewing trojanised packages all lovingly signed with my fake GPG-KEY? The only way you'd know my packages weren't kosher was if you had the ORIGINAL key from the original package source. Oh wait, that's right, that's totally absurd and undermines the whole system. Silly me. James -- Stop searching. Happiness is right next to you. Now, if they'd only take a bath ... -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
James Gray wrote: On Monday 12 September 2005 08:55, O Plameras wrote: Glen Turner wrote: O Plameras wrote: I have Fedora Core 4. This is what I do the first time I got a similar error. As root I do, # rpm --import http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/RPM-GPG-K EY-fedora You should get the key directly from the Red Hat or Debian site. The whole purpose of the key is to allow you to verify that the mirror hasn't altered the package. The idea of the GPG-KEY is the file downloaded has not been changed in transit. Rolls eyes The chances of a GPG-KEY being altered in transit by a man-in-the-middle type attack when fetching the key from its original location is a far more remote possibility than a GPG-KEY on a mirror being altered for malicious reasons etc. Glen is 100% spot-on. GPG-key is one-way hash summary of the file. If the GPG-key is changed the download will not work. One cannot have GPG-key changed and have the file changed to match the GPG-key. Fetching the key from the mirror where you downloaded the software allows the mirror site to feed you altered packages. The idea that mirror sites alters files that they served is absurd. Espousing such idea undermines the system. No, actually, your idea undermines the whole system. This is not my idea. This is the whole concept of TRUST in Mirroring System. If mirrors changes files and/or keys who do you trust ? Why do you think mirroring works and used ? What if I hijack someone's DNS (like planetmirror or pacific internet or aarnet) then start spewing trojanised packages all lovingly signed with my fake GPG-KEY? The only way you'd know my packages weren't kosher was if you had the ORIGINAL key from the original package source. Again check the idea of one-way-hashing or message-digest. It is precisely the maliciousness of hijacking that it is meant to prevent. Hijacking, as you probably know, is someone in the middle of two participants in communication that pretends to be one-of-them and changes the messages between thes two participants. That's why you have to have GPG-key to ensure that the file is not changed whilst in transit. One-way-hashing would prevent this situation. Oh wait, that's right, that's totally absurd and undermines the whole system. Silly me. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:00:46AM +1000, O Plameras wrote: This is not my idea. This is the whole concept of TRUST in Mirroring System. If mirrors changes files and/or keys who do you trust ? How do you know that you can trust the person running the mirror you use? Why do you think mirroring works and used ? Mirrors are used because they bring the data closer to the people who need it, and reduce the load on the upstream servers. They are trusted only because people are too lazy to learn how to check whether the packages are the same as those being distributed upstream. They should not be blindly trusted. Paul -- Paul Dwerryhouse| PGP Key ID: 0x6B91B584 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
Paul Dwerryhouse wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:00:46AM +1000, O Plameras wrote: This is not my idea. This is the whole concept of TRUST in Mirroring System. If mirrors changes files and/or keys who do you trust ? How do you know that you can trust the person running the mirror you use? Different persons have different yard sticks for deciding whether to TRUST or NOT TRUST mirrors. In my case, some yardsticks are longevity of reliable service; endorsements or lack of endorsements by the Internet; and authentification certificates. You just TRUST or DO NOT a mirror site. Clearly, if you don't then don't use it at all. But it is BAD practice to selectively trust ( or not trust) a mirror. Don't get me wrong, when I don't trust a mirror, it does not mean that mirror is malicious. Why do you think mirroring works and used ? Mirrors are used because they bring the data closer to the people who need it, and reduce the load on the upstream servers. They are trusted only because people are too lazy to learn how to check whether the packages are the same as those being distributed upstream. They should not be blindly trusted. Paul -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
On Monday 12 September 2005 10:00, O Plameras wrote: James Gray wrote: On Monday 12 September 2005 08:55, O Plameras wrote: Glen Turner wrote: O Plameras wrote: I have Fedora Core 4. This is what I do the first time I got a similar error. As root I do, # rpm --import http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/RPM-GPG- K EY-fedora You should get the key directly from the Red Hat or Debian site. The whole purpose of the key is to allow you to verify that the mirror hasn't altered the package. The idea of the GPG-KEY is the file downloaded has not been changed in transit. Rolls eyes The chances of a GPG-KEY being altered in transit by a man-in-the-middle type attack when fetching the key from its original location is a far more remote possibility than a GPG-KEY on a mirror being altered for malicious reasons etc. Glen is 100% spot-on. GPG-key is one-way hash summary of the file. If the GPG-key is changed the download will not work. One cannot have GPG-key changed and have the file changed to match the GPG-key. No - but I can generate my own malicious GPG-KEY, then sign my own trojanised packages. You download the key I generated for my malicious purpose and you're screwed. I'm not talking about a mirror accidentally getting a corrupt/altered file in the normal course of mirroringI'm talking about a wholesale attack on a specific mirror. Fetching the key from the mirror where you downloaded the software allows the mirror site to feed you altered packages. The idea that mirror sites alters files that they served is absurd. Espousing such idea undermines the system. No, actually, your idea undermines the whole system. This is not my idea. This is the whole concept of TRUST in Mirroring System. If mirrors changes files and/or keys who do you trust ? Why do you think mirroring works and used ? I *DON'T* trust mirrors, which is why I get my keys from the source (Debian/Redhat/SuSE/etc) - not from the mirror. You're incredibly trusting for a guy who believes that the only secure kernel is one you compile yourself. You're happy to trust your mirror's/distro's user-land apps, but not the kernel? WTF? (http://lists.slug.org.au/archives/slug/2004/11/msg00081.html) What if I hijack someone's DNS (like planetmirror or pacific internet or aarnet) then start spewing trojanised packages all lovingly signed with my fake GPG-KEY? The only way you'd know my packages weren't kosher was if you had the ORIGINAL key from the original package source. Again check the idea of one-way-hashing or message-digest. It is precisely the maliciousness of hijacking that it is meant to prevent. I know what what I one-way-hash is, I did Computer Science 101 too. Your idea only works as long as I'm checking all the packages against the published key from the original packager. If I sign the packages with a malicious key, and you download the malicious key, then you'll be unaware the packages have been altered. Hijacking, as you probably know, is someone in the middle of two participants in communication that pretends to be one-of-them and changes the messages between thes two participants. You didn't read my entire message did you? I'm not talking about a man-in-the-middle attack. I'm talking about hijacking someone's DNS and/or BECOMING the original mirror. Not intercepting traffic to/from the mirror. That's why you have to have GPG-key to ensure that the file is not changed whilst in transit. One-way-hashing would prevent this situation. Only if you get the original hash (or signing key) for the original package. If I trojanise a package, create a new hash/key based my own malicious key and package, then you'd be happily downloading my trojans blissfully unaware of the fact, until you get the original signing key from the original source. Remember, I'm talking about a malicious mirror here, set up for the purpose of spewing trojanised/back-doored packages. *NOT* a man-in-the-middle attack. If it were the latter, then your comments would be true. My comments (and Glen's) are based on the same principle for why you don't sign untrusted GPG/PGP signatures. Get the sig from the source, always. Cheers, James -- My geometry teacher was sometimes acute, and sometimes obtuse, but always, always, he was right. [That's an interesting angle. I wonder if there are any parallels?] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:36:36AM +1000, O Plameras wrote: Different persons have different yard sticks for deciding whether to TRUST or NOT TRUST mirrors. Er, if you get the gpg key from a trusted site, then download the packages from the mirror you don't HAVE to trust the mirror. (as long as you believe gpg / yum / apt is not broken) There are many instances of not only mirrors but master sites of FOSS software being hacked into. I've never heard of a successful man-in-the-middle attack against yum/apt/gpg. Still I sort of agree with you that getting the gpg key from a know 'trusted' mirror like planetmirror is not a huge risk. I would at least check the finger print of the key against the master site or google. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
Matthew Hannigan wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:36:36AM +1000, O Plameras wrote: Different persons have different yard sticks for deciding whether to TRUST or NOT TRUST mirrors. Er, if you get the gpg key from a trusted site, then download the packages from the mirror you don't HAVE to trust the mirror. (as long as you believe gpg / yum / apt is not broken) It can be asked, why not use the gpg-key from the mirror to download as it will not download if gpg-key does not have integrity ? There are many instances of not only mirrors but master sites of FOSS software being hacked into. I've never heard of a successful man-in-the-middle attack against yum/apt/gpg. Still I sort of agree with you that getting the gpg key from a know 'trusted' mirror like planetmirror is not a huge risk. I would at least check the finger print of the key against the master site or google. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
quote who=O Plameras It can be asked, why not use the gpg-key from the mirror to download as it will not download if gpg-key does not have integrity ? Because I want to check the validity of the material on the mirror against the key provided by the upstream project. I trust the mirror enough to use it, but I don't trust the mirror enough to validate it against a key which was also provided by it. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2006: Dunedin, New Zealand http://linux.conf.au/ From my observation, when it comes to porting Linux to a particular device, a point doesn't appear to be necessary. - mpt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 10:36:36AM +1000, O Plameras wrote: You just TRUST or DO NOT a mirror site. Clearly, if you don't then don't use it at all. Again I ask, how do you know that you can trust the person running the mirror you use? How do you know that you can even trust the DNS entry that you're getting for that mirror? I used to be the sysadmin for an ISP that served around a million or so users, the vast majority of whom used the caching DNS servers that we provided. If I'd been a black-hat type, I'd have had ample opportunity to hijack the domain names that people were getting for various mirrors. If this happened in real life, then anyone who implicitly trusted these mirrors (and, for that matter, their DNS), could easily have been compromised. But it is BAD practice to selectively trust ( or not trust) a mirror. The only bad practice is to trust a mirror at all. If you don't use some sort of signature checking of the files you're getting from it, you run the risk of using a file that is not what you were intending to get. Selectivity doesn't even come into it. Paul -- Paul Dwerryhouse| PGP Key ID: 0x6B91B584 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
try this if you havent got it already set up wget http://amd64.debian.net/archive.key apt-key add archive.key then apt-get install blah hopefully that should work out for you. Toliman. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
I am getting rather fed up with the following message when I run an apt-get update on my amd64 etch box. W: GPG error: http://public.planetmirror.com etch Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY E415B2B4B5F5BBED I can't find any clear concise reference as to what I need to do, and I admit being non gpg savvy. Could someone please hit me with a nice simple cluestick so I can make this damned thing go away for good? -- David It's time to reconsider your thoughts about the iron carbon double diagram. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 21:04 +1000, David Fisher wrote: I am getting rather fed up with the following message when I run an apt-get update on my amd64 etch box. http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/174 Should explain it all. Cheers, Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
David Fisher wrote: I am getting rather fed up with the following message when I run an apt-get update on my amd64 etch box. W: GPG error: http://public.planetmirror.com etch Release: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY E415B2B4B5F5BBED I can't find any clear concise reference as to what I need to do, and I admit being non gpg savvy. Could someone please hit me with a nice simple cluestick so I can make this damned thing go away for good? I have Fedora Core 4. This is what I do the first time I got a similar error. As root I do, # rpm --import http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora If this does not work because my rpm is not the latest version, I do, # wget http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/4/i386/os/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora # rpm --import RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt gpg key for planetmirror
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 21:53, Robert Collins wrote: On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 21:04 +1000, David Fisher wrote: I am getting rather fed up with the following message when I run an apt-get update on my amd64 etch box. http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/174 Should explain it all. Sorry, but it's still as clear as mud to me. What key do I need to import from Planetmirror's amd64 etch archive? Where do I get it from? -- David It's time to reconsider your thoughts about the iron carbon double diagram. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get dist-upgrade and config files...
ok, I just went through a long dist-upgrade and it asked me if I wantted to overwrite some of my config files with the maintainer's versions... now I don't remember ever editing any of these (apart from crontab) so I don't know what changed so I hit no to all of them... but I'm pretty sure some of them could have easily been replaced without being a problem - and maybe it would have been a good idea to just install them anyway. however, now I'm not sure which files they were or how to update them - is there any way to be able to tell which files are not the latest? (I've tried just running dist-upgrade again, but that doesn't do anything more. Cheers, Taryn -- This .sig temporarily out-of-order. We apologise for any inconvenience - The Management -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-upgrading Bluefish (not) ?
It keeps foundering with the following message. What's happening ? Is the Bluefish maintainer still around ? Adam Bogacki, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tux:~# apt-get dist-upgrade --fix-missing Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done Calculating Upgrade... Done The following packages have been kept back: gnomoradio librainbow0 libroboradio0 xfonts-artwiz The following packages will be upgraded: bluefish 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 4 not upgraded. Need to get 1482kB of archives. After unpacking 311kB of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Err http://mentors.debian.net unstable/main bluefish 0.14-cvs20040810+1 404 Not Found Failed to fetch http://mentors.debian.net/debian/./pool/main/b/bluefish/bluefish_0.14-cvs20040810+1_i386.deb 404 Not Found -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-rpm
For the rpm based Linux system, to install a package also require other dependencies that have to install the dependencies manually. Are there any tools like the apt-get in Debian so that I can install and update the packages easily from the net? Leung _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-rpm
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:41:16AM EST, FH Leung wrote: Are there any tools like the apt-get in Debian so that I can install and update the packages easily from the net? Yes there are. It depends on the distro you are using. If you are using a recent version of Mandrake, you already have a system like this at your disposal called urpmi. If you are using one of the Fedora releases, you can geet apt for rpm from various sites on the net. For Fedora, there is also yum, which it comes with. hth Luke -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get and FC
Hi all, I am wanting to use apt-get with FC1 and all works fine, except it wants to remove a program I want to keep (ltsp-floppyd - which is used to allow the thin client users to access their local floppy drive). Can I tell it to upgrade but not remove? Can't see it in the options. Yum fails on the dependency check, specifically on gtkam-gimp, we use and need Gimp. -- Simon Bryan IT Manager OLMC Parramatta -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get question
From John Nicholls [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 6 Feb 2004: Alan L Tyree wrote: I'm new to debian - actually Knoppix on a hard disk. Added an internet source to sources.list: deb http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib apt-get update The command apt-get update looks at all the packages installed on your hard disk, and checks to see if there are upgrades to any of them in whatever distribution is specified in your sources.list. In your case this is the unstable distribution, which as you've found contains a large number of updates. If you now issue the command apt-get -u upgrade Shouldn't he use apt-get dist-upgrade for the first time? (see apt-get's manual). ___ The FREE service that prevents junk email http://www.mailshell.com -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-get question
Alan L Tyree wrote: I'm new to debian - actually Knoppix on a hard disk. Added an internet source to sources.list: deb http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib apt-get update The command apt-get update looks at all the packages installed on your hard disk, and checks to see if there are upgrades to any of them in whatever distribution is specified in your sources.list. In your case this is the unstable distribution, which as you've found contains a large number of updates. If you now issue the command apt-get -u upgrade you will see a list of all the packages that could be upgraded. Do not be alarmed, because at the end of this list, you will be asked Do you want to continue? Answer No. John -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-get question
I'm new to debian - actually Knoppix on a hard disk. The sources.list was just the woody 3.0r2 cdroms. I installed Sylpheed from those disks since that is the email client of choice for my wife. I wanted to upgrade to a later version of Sylpheed. Added an internet source to sources.list: deb http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib apt-get update apt-get install sylpheed produced a list of packages to download: over 28mb. Too much for my dial-up connection this morning. Downloaded the latest .tar.bz2 file, 2+mb ./configure, make, make install worked a treat. My question: Why did apt-get think I needed so much additional material? Is there some different command I should use? etc, etc, etc. Thanks, Alan -- -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: +61 2 4782 2670 Mobile: +61 405 084 990 Fax: +61 2 4782 7092 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-cdrom add over nfs
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 14:30, Mark A. Bell wrote: Hello everyone, I have an old notebook with a basic Debian system installed and no CD-ROM, a desktop computer, and a set of 'woody' CDs. I have NFS running on both the desktop and the notebook, and I can mount the desktop CD-ROM from the notebook with: mount debian:/cdrom /dev/cdrom I know it's mounted because I can 'ls' the desktop CDROM from the notebook. However, when I run on the notebook: apt-cdrom add -d /dev/cdrom I get: Using CD-ROM mount point /dev/cdrom/ Unmounting CD-ROM Please insert a disc and press enter Mounting CD-ROM E: Failed to mount the cdrom Mark, Try adding the -m switch (no mounting): apt-cdrom add -m -d /dev/cdrom Brendan -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt-cdrom add over nfs
Mark, Try adding the -m switch (no mounting): apt-cdrom add -m -d /dev/cdrom Brendan Thanks, Brendan, problem solved! - mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt NVIDIA driver - how to get it?
G'day, I had a GeForce MX 2 64 mb and trying to make it work under my debian box. I looked at the docos and the easiest way to get these files: Package nvidia-glx Package nvidia-glx-dev Package nvidia-kernel-common Package nvidia-kernel-source is to use apt-get (hey, thats way I am using debian) Here is my sources.list: deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib but when I run dselect and query package of NVIDIA, only 'nvidia-kernel-common' showing, nothing else. Anybody know the painless way to get this AGP card works? Thanks, Phillip. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt NVIDIA driver - how to get it?
Hi Phillipus, I have a laptop running debian unstable with a Gforce GX chipset in it. Here are the packages ive got installed (note im running unstable, pretty sure there isnt much difference between that and testing) bash-2.05b$ dpkg -l |grep nvidia ii nvidia-glx 1.0.4496-8 NVIDIA binary XFree86 4.x driver ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-5 NVIDIA binary kernel module for Linux 2.4.22 ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-3 NVIDIA binary kernel module common files ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-8 NVIDIA binary kernel module source I also get deb-src's, so perhaps the other modules are in there, add 'deb-src ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing main non-free contrib' to your sources.list and see if you get the additional packages under dselect/apt. I used the instructions from http://channel.debian.de/faq/ch-confighw.html#s-nvidia to get it up and running, it's in german, but shell commands dont care about that ;) You have to build the package yourself and then install it as a module for your specific kernel version. Good Luck! Cheers, Shane. On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 21:12, Phillipus Gunawan wrote: G'day, I had a GeForce MX 2 64 mb and trying to make it work under my debian box. I looked at the docos and the easiest way to get these files: Package nvidia-glx Package nvidia-glx-dev Package nvidia-kernel-common Package nvidia-kernel-source is to use apt-get (hey, thats way I am using debian) Here is my sources.list: deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib but when I run dselect and query package of NVIDIA, only 'nvidia-kernel-common' showing, nothing else. Anybody know the painless way to get this AGP card works? Thanks, Phillip. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt NVIDIA driver - how to get it?
Thx for the repy, This is funny, I also put the same line in my sources.list. Runnign command 'bash-2.05b$ dpkg -l |grep nvidia' only resulting 'nvidia-kernel-common' only, the one that I installed already. But why I only had nvidia-kernel-common only? Thankz --- Shane Machon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Phillipus, I have a laptop running debian unstable with a Gforce GX chipset in it. Here are the packages ive got installed (note im running unstable, pretty sure there isnt much difference between that and testing) bash-2.05b$ dpkg -l |grep nvidia ii nvidia-glx 1.0.4496-8 NVIDIA binary XFree86 4.x driver ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-5 NVIDIA binary kernel module for Linux 2.4.22 ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-3 NVIDIA binary kernel module common files ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-8 NVIDIA binary kernel module source I also get deb-src's, so perhaps the other modules are in there, add 'deb-src ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing main non-free contrib' to your sources.list and see if you get the additional packages under dselect/apt. I used the instructions from http://channel.debian.de/faq/ch-confighw.html#s-nvidia to get it up and running, it's in german, but shell commands dont care about that ;) You have to build the package yourself and then install it as a module for your specific kernel version. Good Luck! Cheers, Shane. On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 21:12, Phillipus Gunawan wrote: G'day, I had a GeForce MX 2 64 mb and trying to make it work under my debian box. I looked at the docos and the easiest way to get these files: Package nvidia-glx Package nvidia-glx-dev Package nvidia-kernel-common Package nvidia-kernel-source is to use apt-get (hey, thats way I am using debian) Here is my sources.list: deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib but when I run dselect and query package of NVIDIA, only 'nvidia-kernel-common' showing, nothing else. Anybody know the painless way to get this AGP card works? Thanks, Phillip. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt NVIDIA driver - how to get it?
Phillipus Gunawan wrote: G'day, I had a GeForce MX 2 64 mb and trying to make it work under my debian box. I looked at the docos and the easiest way to get these files: Package nvidia-glx Package nvidia-glx-dev Package nvidia-kernel-common Package nvidia-kernel-source is to use apt-get (hey, thats way I am using debian) Here is my sources.list: deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib but when I run dselect and query package of NVIDIA, only 'nvidia-kernel-common' showing, nothing else. Anybody know the painless way to get this AGP card works? The installer from nVidia has always worked well for me. You will need to apt-get the kernel-headers to match your kernel, then you just specify the headers path to the installer, and it builds the kernel module for you. Then 'dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86' to choose the nvidia driver, remove some modules, etc etc. The README on the nVidia site is helpful. Felix -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt NVIDIA driver - how to get it?
Phillip, Im not sure of that one, ive logged into the ftp server, and ive been able to access http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/n/nvidia-graphics-drivers/nvidia-glx_1.0.4496-2.1_i386.deb, which indicates the files there. Unless the packages file(s) on that server are not accurate (doubtful), try another server perhaps? Just a thought, but you have run apt-get update or dselect's update after updating your sources.list file havent you? have to ask it :) Try another apt source and run apt-get update and see if you have the same problem. Cheers, Shane. On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 21:57, Phillipus Gunawan wrote: Thx for the repy, This is funny, I also put the same line in my sources.list. Runnign command 'bash-2.05b$ dpkg -l |grep nvidia' only resulting 'nvidia-kernel-common' only, the one that I installed already. But why I only had nvidia-kernel-common only? Thankz --- Shane Machon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Phillipus, I have a laptop running debian unstable with a Gforce GX chipset in it. Here are the packages ive got installed (note im running unstable, pretty sure there isnt much difference between that and testing) bash-2.05b$ dpkg -l |grep nvidia ii nvidia-glx 1.0.4496-8 NVIDIA binary XFree86 4.x driver ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-5 NVIDIA binary kernel module for Linux 2.4.22 ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-3 NVIDIA binary kernel module common files ii nvidia-kernel- 1.0.4496-8 NVIDIA binary kernel module source I also get deb-src's, so perhaps the other modules are in there, add 'deb-src ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian testing main non-free contrib' to your sources.list and see if you get the additional packages under dselect/apt. I used the instructions from http://channel.debian.de/faq/ch-confighw.html#s-nvidia to get it up and running, it's in german, but shell commands dont care about that ;) You have to build the package yourself and then install it as a module for your specific kernel version. Good Luck! Cheers, Shane. On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 21:12, Phillipus Gunawan wrote: G'day, I had a GeForce MX 2 64 mb and trying to make it work under my debian box. I looked at the docos and the easiest way to get these files: Package nvidia-glx Package nvidia-glx-dev Package nvidia-kernel-common Package nvidia-kernel-source is to use apt-get (hey, thats way I am using debian) Here is my sources.list: deb ftp://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main non-free contrib but when I run dselect and query package of NVIDIA, only 'nvidia-kernel-common' showing, nothing else. Anybody know the painless way to get this AGP card works? Thanks, Phillip. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt NVIDIA driver - how to get it?
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004, Phillipus Gunawan wrote: but when I run dselect and query package of NVIDIA, only 'nvidia-kernel-common' showing, nothing else. Anybody know the painless way to get this AGP card works? It is in the Australian mirrors although I'm not exactly sure which one. Go to the repository in your browser and hunt around a b it, you can always just download the debs (you'll need kernel headers too). Once you have the packages installed you'll need to look at the README and README.Debian files in the relevant /usr/share/doc/ directories. I prefer these packages to a standard build using the NVidia makefiles and scripts, because apt sometimes blats them with software mesa rendering stuff. -Mary -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt question - backports and dist-upgrade
Hi, One of my debian boxes si running stable with a fairly messy collection of backports. I am now thinking of changing top unstable thus elinating the need for many of the backports. Yet after, when I do a dist-upgrade many of the backports aren't listed as being upgraded. I want the official versions that are in unstable rather than the versions I have now. Could this be due to package numbering of the backports? And if so (or even if not) can I just removing packages in question and then re-install them? Or am I missing something else? Thanks in advance Alex -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] apt question - backports and dist-upgrade
quote who=Alex Sutcliffe One of my debian boxes si running stable with a fairly messy collection of backports. I am now thinking of changing top unstable thus elinating the need for many of the backports. Yet after, when I do a dist-upgrade many of the backports aren't listed as being upgraded. I want the official versions that are in unstable rather than the versions I have now. Could this be due to package numbering of the backports? And if so (or even if not) can I just removing packages in question and then re-install them? Or am I missing something else? This is possibly because they're the same version as unstable (when you do backports, you're meant to do tricky things with the Debian point version) so you just have to: apt-get install package/unstable and you should be right. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia http://lca2004.linux.org.au/ Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations problems. - Bruce Schneier -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] apt-proxy-v2
hi guys i'm trying to use apt-proxy-v2 but it fails to start. # /etc/init.d/apt-proxy-v2 start Starting apt-proxy-v2 Failed to load application: No module named apt_pkg i'm not familiar with python and how it handles lib paths. it may be that on my system i have python2.2 and python2.3. apt-proxy uses 2.2 but apt_pkg is in the 2.3 lib tree. i tried putting apt_pkg into the 2.2 lib tree but it made no difference. a google search just seems to show up posts of people having a problem with apt-listchanges. ideas? marty -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
[SLUG] apt-get Older versions of redhat (freshrpms question)
Slug, I was going to upgrade my redhat 7.2 system to redhat 9 because I was under the impression that no more rpms were being built this version of redhat (as it says on http://valhalla.freshrpms.net/ ). Then with all the ssh stuff I ran apt-get update apt-get upgrade and it found new ssh packages and installed them! I am only interested in updating the system so it doesn't get r00ted, does anyone know what the deal is whether security packages are still being built and for how much longer? Do I need to upgrade or should I just keep checking the freshrpms website to see if they have stopped building packages for my system? Joel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-get Older versions of redhat (freshrpms question)
Joel Heenan wrote: Slug, I was going to upgrade my redhat 7.2 system to redhat 9 because I was under the impression that no more rpms were being built this version of redhat (as it says on http://valhalla.freshrpms.net/ ). Then with all the ssh stuff I ran apt-get update apt-get upgrade and it found new ssh packages and installed them! I am only interested in updating the system so it doesn't get r00ted, does anyone know what the deal is whether security packages are still being built and for how much longer? Do I need to upgrade or should I just keep checking the freshrpms website to see if they have stopped building packages for my system? Joel Check the RH website - security updates. Pretty sure it says 7.1 thru 8.0 are being supported till Dec 31 2003. Fil -- Phil Scarratt Draxsen Technologies IT Contractor 0403 53 12 71 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-get Older versions of redhat (freshrpms question)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 05:11:15PM +1000, Phil Scarratt wrote: Check the RH website - security updates. Pretty sure it says 7.1 thru 8.0 are being supported till Dec 31 2003. They are. Updated packages for 7.1 and above have been released. Cheers, John -- whois [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key id: 0xD59C360F http://kirriwa.net/john/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-get Older versions of redhat (freshrpms question)
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Joel Heenan wrote: Slug, I was going to upgrade my redhat 7.2 system to redhat 9 because I was under the impression that no more rpms were being built this version of redhat (as it says on http://valhalla.freshrpms.net/ ). Then with all the ssh stuff I ran apt-get update apt-get upgrade and it found new ssh packages and installed them! I am only interested in updating the system so it doesn't get r00ted, does anyone know what the deal is whether security packages are still being built and for how much longer? Do I need to upgrade or should I just keep checking the freshrpms website to see if they have stopped building packages for my system? Whilst the future of official RedHat RPMS may be in question there's definitely no stopping people continuing to support RedHat 7.3 for a long time to come. It has a very large installed base and well if people feel the urge to fix it, it will be fixed. EG for a long time Anthony at the office was unofficially maintaining ssh rpm's for RedHat 6.2 (it never came with it as this was before openssh) and distributed with each new batch of the 'EverythingLinux Bleeding Edge RedHat 6.2' CDR's. ---GRiP--- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
[SLUG] apt-proxy and tcpd
Hi, I'm trying to set up apt-proxy, and am getting interminable 'connection refused' errors. Normally this would be because of incorrectly configured tcp wrappers. My hosts allow looks pretty much like this: ALL: .my.network.name # And for good measure: apt-proxy: 192.168.0. And my hosts.deny is blank. When I run 'tcpdmatch apt-proxy holly.hys.lan' I get: client: hostname server.my.network.name client: address 192.168.0.9 server: process apt-proxy matched: /etc/hosts.allow line 14 access: granted Now this would suggest that everything on the tcpd side of things is correctly configured, and the problem is something to do with the configuration, but as I understand it, this would result in tcpd putting an error message inmons.log whenever I try to use apt, but there is nothing there. I have tried both a hand-rolled sources.list and apt-proxy.conf, and files generated by the bundled apt-proxy-mkconfig script to no avail. Any suggestions gratefully appreciated. Matthew. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
[SLUG] apt-rpm and some weirdness
Helping out someone who has Redhat and has apt-rpm running.. just recently and not too sure if it's ever been seen or not, getting errors about pkglist not existsing when doing an 'apt-get update' Here is a dump of the errors im seeing, any help would be appreciated as the system from an apt-get dist-upgrade (7.3 to 7.3) is now HIGHLY stuffed and im trying to rule stuff out (incidently, I see this message using heaps of mirrors and even attempting 8.0 update - didn't go there yet though) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# apt-get update Get:1 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386 release [1123B] Fetched 1123B in 0s (4540B/s) Get:1 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os pkglist [405kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os release Get:2 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates pkglist [141kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates release Get:3 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms pkglist [52.6kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms release Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Fetched 599kB in 21s (28.2kB/s) Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.os Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn' t there Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.updates Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.freshrpms Waited, for bzip2 but i t wasn't there Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-rpm and some weirdness
I had the same problem. Have you checked /etc/apt/apt.conf for your proxy settings if you are behind a firewall? There is a sample in /usr/share/doc/apt-/examples Laurie On 06 Aug 2003 22:02:18 +1000 Ramon Buckland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Helping out someone who has Redhat and has apt-rpm running.. just recently and not too sure if it's ever been seen or not, getting errors about pkglist not existsing when doing an 'apt-get update' Here is a dump of the errors im seeing, any help would be appreciated as the system from an apt-get dist-upgrade (7.3 to 7.3) is now HIGHLY stuffed and im trying to rule stuff out (incidently, I see this message using heaps of mirrors and even attempting 8.0 update - didn't go there yet though) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# apt-get update Get:1 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386 release [1123B] Fetched 1123B in 0s (4540B/s) Get:1 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os pkglist [405kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os release Get:2 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates pkglist [141kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates release Get:3 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms pkglist [52.6kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms release Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Fetched 599kB in 21s (28.2kB/s) Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.os Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn' t there Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.updates Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.freshrpms Waited, for bzip2 but i t wasn't there Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-rpm and some weirdness
Hardware strikes! After the email and all the next week trying stuff, apt-get just became worse and worse, to the point that after a dist-upgrade (7.3 to 7.3) :-), it completely stopped booting, lilo gave garbled test before the prompt, and mounting/chrooting to the system via another same redhat dist gave seg faults a plenty. oh no .. open the case, and the CPU fan was stopped, ceased solid, and the Motherboard, a little too hot for our hands. In short, new MB, installed debian woody, and we restored from backups the data, hey presto, 4 hrs later a working system, running smooth. After this, I promptly went out on the weekend and replaced my own currently working 2 year old CPU fan, with a new one. I just can't afford the day when it stops, and for $8, I was happy. Hardware sucks when it fails. On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 22:25:05 +1000, Laurie Savage wrote I had the same problem. Have you checked /etc/apt/apt.conf for your proxy settings if you are behind a firewall? There is a sample in /usr/share/doc/apt-/examples Laurie On 06 Aug 2003 22:02:18 +1000 Ramon Buckland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Helping out someone who has Redhat and has apt-rpm running.. just recently and not too sure if it's ever been seen or not, getting errors about pkglist not existsing when doing an 'apt-get update' Here is a dump of the errors im seeing, any help would be appreciated as the system from an apt-get dist-upgrade (7.3 to 7.3) is now HIGHLY stuffed and im trying to rule stuff out (incidently, I see this message using heaps of mirrors and even attempting 8.0 update - didn't go there yet though) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# apt-get update Get:1 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386 release [1123B] Fetched 1123B in 0s (4540B/s) Get:1 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os pkglist [405kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os release Get:2 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates pkglist [141kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates release Get:3 http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms pkglist [52.6kB] Hit http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms release Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/os pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/freshrpms pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Fetched 599kB in 21s (28.2kB/s) Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.os Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn' t there Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.updates Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Failed to fetch http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.freshrpms Waited, for bzip2 but i t wasn't there Reading Package Lists... Done Building Dependency Tree... Done E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug -- ramon buckland www.thebuckland.com -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-rpm and some weirdness
Hey James, Thanks, Yeah it's an unknown system.. so I'll go to work on seeing where it's stuffing up. What i know so far is: bzip2 is working.. and that it _is_ downloading the files.. Turning on debugging in /etc/apt/apt.conf .. I notice it quite happily pulls down the files I also saw this .. Fetching http://apt.au.freshrpms.net/redhat/7.3/en/i386/base/pkglist.os.bz2 to /var/state/apt/lists/partial/apt.au.freshrpms.net_redhat_7.3_en_i386_base_pkglist.os is that correct behaviour ? (stripping the .bz2 off the end) as it doesn't say anything about bunzip2-ing it. unless of course that is just the task it's meant to perform.. ** read in here 1 hour of fuffing ** Anyways, I think I have fixed it (quassi like). Because It was unable to download the latest pkglists (for the reason I am still unsure) I instead manually downloaded them and put them into /var/state/apt/lists and renamed them in the format of the other files .. manually downloaded, un'bzip2 and put it * apt.au.freshrpms.net_redhat_7.3_en_i386_base_pkglist.freshrpms * apt.au.freshrpms.net_redhat_7.3_en_i386_base_pkglist.os * apt.au.freshrpms.net_redhat_7.3_en_i386_base_pkglist.updates these were already there apt.au.freshrpms.net_redhat_7.3_en_i386_base_release apt.au.freshrpms.net_redhat_7.3_en_i386_base_release.freshrpms apt.au.freshrpms.net_redhat_7.3_en_i386_base_release.os apt.au.freshrpms.net_redhat_7.3_en_i386_base_release.updates so then when I did an apt-get update, this time it saw it didn;t need to attempt downloading them, and now I am on the road to fixing the problem at hand (a stuffed install somehow)... weird.. thoughts ? On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 22:27, James Gregory wrote: On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 22:02, Ramon Buckland wrote: Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Hi Ramon, So I'm probably stating the obvious, but I'd start by checking that the machine has a working copy of bzip2. Those files are on freshrpms, I can see them from here anyway. Is there any possibility that there's some sort of connectivity problem getting in the way? Lastly, I'd ask rpm to verify the installation of apt and see if that reveals anything. If you aren't sure of its origins perhaps you should download a known good copy from freshrpms and install that. Could be that someone installed apt from RPMs for a newer redhat ignoring dependencies or something. HTH James. -- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-rpm and some weirdness
So I'm probably stating the obvious, but I'd start by checking that the machine has a working copy of bzip2. Yeah, he is there and working. Tested downloding the files using wget and then 'bzip2 -d'd them. Those files are on freshrpms, I can see them from here anyway. Yp I can see them :-) Is there any possibility that there's some sort of connectivity problem getting in the way? Doesn't seem that way, the manual download of the files worked not a problem (using wget) Lastly, I'd ask rpm to verify the installation of apt and see if that reveals anything. If you aren't sure of its origins perhaps you should download a known good copy from freshrpms and install that. Could be that someone installed apt from RPMs for a newer redhat ignoring dependencies or something. I didn't get rpm to verify, What I did do was check the db version, RPM v4.04, then downloaded apt for 7.3 (supporting RPM v4.04) I then tried rpm -Uvh rpm package but said it wouldn't install because it was already that version so, just to be sure I forced it to update it (in case it was corrupt) (maybe that's what the rpm verification does yeah ? I stopped using RedHat in 1999). .. so Im now waiting for the box to pull down it's 200 odd Meg of rpm's to update itself (which is what got it in the mess in the first place I think). -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-rpm and some weirdness
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 22:02, Ramon Buckland wrote: Err http://apt.au.freshrpms.net redhat/7.3/en/i386/updates pkglist Waited, for bzip2 but it wasn't there Hi Ramon, So I'm probably stating the obvious, but I'd start by checking that the machine has a working copy of bzip2. Those files are on freshrpms, I can see them from here anyway. Is there any possibility that there's some sort of connectivity problem getting in the way? Lastly, I'd ask rpm to verify the installation of apt and see if that reveals anything. If you aren't sure of its origins perhaps you should download a known good copy from freshrpms and install that. Could be that someone installed apt from RPMs for a newer redhat ignoring dependencies or something. HTH James. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
Re: [SLUG] apt-rpm
Adam Hewitt wrote: If you have a RH 6.2 machine, can you use apt-rpm to upgrade it to RH 9.0? or can you only update it to the latest 6.2 packages? If you can upgrade it to 9.0, is there anything you need to watch out for that may kill the system? This would not be the wisest thing to do, LOTS has changed since 6.2. I suggest getting 9 (from ftp.iinet.net.au or similar, for you, free WAIX traffic, damn WAIX). - Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
RE: [SLUG] apt-rpm
From: Adam Hewitt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 22 July 2003 2:40 PM Hi All, If you have a RH 6.2 machine, can you use apt-rpm to upgrade it to RH 9.0? or can you only update it to the latest 6.2 packages? If you can upgrade it to 9.0, is there anything you need to watch out for that may kill the system? No knowledge of apt-rpm, but just on what might go wrong in the upgrade: I recently upgraded from RedHat 7.1 (with all the latest RPMs for it installed) to RedHat 9 using the upgrade option from the CDs. The list of things that I noticed no longer worked included: httpd was upgraded, but the link to start it in /etc/rc.d/rc3.d was removed. It took me a while before I found out that I no longer had that running. saned upgrade overwrote the /etc/xinetd/saned entry and the list of permitted users - both without making a backup (no rpmsave/rpmold/rpmnew!). Samba was upgraded, but swat wasnt? The old swat was removed though! I was using LPRN for my printer, and it overwrote the configuration file without backing it up. vmware 3.x just doesnt work out of the box with RedHat 9. Fortunately there is a patch. Most other changes seemed to go OK. I have not yet tested the fax though. Regards, Andrew -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
