Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.bugs.rc > #377278 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-28 14:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-12-15 18:20 +0100 |
| Articles | 10 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.rc
Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> - 2024-11-28 14:40 +0100
Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-11-28 15:00 +0100
Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 10:00 +0100
Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-12-07 21:40 +0100
Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> - 2024-12-08 00:00 +0100
Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-12-08 00:10 +0100
Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> - 2024-12-08 00:50 +0100
Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> - 2024-12-09 12:20 +0100
Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#1084789: debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso has multiple versions of module udebs "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> - 2024-12-15 18:20 +0100
Bug#1088605: Bug#1084789: debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso has multiple versions of module udebs Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2024-12-15 18:20 +0100
| From | Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-28 14:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Bug#1088605: installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources |
| Message-ID | <JNMUp-ceeC-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Package: installation-reports
Severity: grave
Tags: d-i
Justification: renders package unusable
(Please provide enough information to help the Debian
maintainers evaluate the report efficiently - e.g., by filling
in the sections below.)
Boot method: CD
Image version: https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-cd/debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso 2024-11-25
Date: 2024-11-28
Machine: QEMU VM
Partitions: <df -Tl will do; the raw partition table is preferred>
* qemu-img create testing.img 10G
* All files in one partition
Base System Installation Checklist:
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it
Initial boot: [O]
Detect network card: [O]
Configure network: [O]
Detect media: [O]
Load installer modules: [O]
Clock/timezone setup: [O]
User/password setup: [O]
Detect hard drives: [O]
Partition hard drives: [O]
Install base system: [E]
Install tasks: [ ]
Install boot loader: [ ]
Overall install: [ ]
Comments/Problems:
┌───────────────────┤ [!] Install the base system ├────────────────────┐
│ │
│ No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources. │
│ │
│ You may try to continue without a kernel, and manually install your │
│ own kernel later. This is only recommended for experts, otherwise │
│ you will likely end up with a machine that doesn't boot. │
│ │
│ Continue without installing a kernel? │
│ │
│ <Go Back> <Yes> <No> │
│ │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
<Description of the install, in prose, and any thoughts, comments
and ideas you had during the initial install.>
Everything went fine until base-installer failed.
I think the cause is that this directory:
pool/main/l/linux-signed-amd64
is missing the following files:
linux-image-x.y.z-amd64_x.y.z-1_amd64.deb
linux-image-amd64_x.y.z-1_amd64.deb
This should be easy to reproduce.
Please make sure that any installation logs that you think would
be useful are attached to this report. (You can find them in the
installer system in /var/log/ and later on the installed system
under /var/log/installer.) Please compress large files using gzip.
/var/log/syslog:
base-installer: info: Found kernels ''
base-installer: error: exiting on error base-installer/kernel/no-kernels-found
Thank you!
Daniel Lewart
Urbana, Illinois
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-28 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JNNdL-celA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377278 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi, Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> (2024-11-28): > Package: installation-reports > Severity: grave > Tags: d-i > Justification: renders package unusable > > (Please provide enough information to help the Debian > maintainers evaluate the report efficiently - e.g., by filling > in the sections below.) > > Boot method: CD > Image version: https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-cd/debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso 2024-11-25 > Date: 2024-11-28 > ┌───────────────────┤ [!] Install the base system ├────────────────────┐ > │ │ > │ No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources. │ > │ │ > │ You may try to continue without a kernel, and manually install your │ > │ own kernel later. This is only recommended for experts, otherwise │ > │ you will likely end up with a machine that doesn't boot. │ > │ │ > │ Continue without installing a kernel? │ > │ │ > │ <Go Back> <Yes> <No> │ > │ │ > └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ > > <Description of the install, in prose, and any thoughts, comments > and ideas you had during the initial install.> > > Everything went fine until base-installer failed. > I think the cause is that this directory: > pool/main/l/linux-signed-amd64 > is missing the following files: > linux-image-x.y.z-amd64_x.y.z-1_amd64.deb > linux-image-amd64_x.y.z-1_amd64.deb > This should be easy to reproduce. Looping in debian-cd@, who is responsible for image builds. There are no linux-image* debs mentioned in list-cd indeed. linux got uploaded on Saturday, but linux-signed-* only came in on Monday, which is weekly image build day. Not sure that explains everything though. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-29 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JO50Z-cqqn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377279 |
Cyril, et al,
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 7:50 AM Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> (2024-11-28):
> > Package: installation-reports
> > Severity: grave
> > Tags: d-i
> > Justification: renders package unusable
> >
> > (Please provide enough information to help the Debian
> > maintainers evaluate the report efficiently - e.g., by filling
> > in the sections below.)
> >
> > Boot method: CD
> > Image version: https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/amd64/iso-cd/debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso 2024-11-25
> > Date: 2024-11-28
>
> > ┌───────────────────┤ [!] Install the base system ├────────────────────┐
> > │ │
> > │ No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources. │
> > │ │
> > │ You may try to continue without a kernel, and manually install your │
> > │ own kernel later. This is only recommended for experts, otherwise │
> > │ you will likely end up with a machine that doesn't boot. │
> > │ │
> > │ Continue without installing a kernel? │
> > │ │
> > │ <Go Back> <Yes> <No> │
> > │ │
> > └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> >
> > <Description of the install, in prose, and any thoughts, comments
> > and ideas you had during the initial install.>
> >
> > Everything went fine until base-installer failed.
> > I think the cause is that this directory:
> > pool/main/l/linux-signed-amd64
> > is missing the following files:
> > linux-image-x.y.z-amd64_x.y.z-1_amd64.deb
> > linux-image-amd64_x.y.z-1_amd64.deb
> > This should be easy to reproduce.
>
> Looping in debian-cd@, who is responsible for image builds. There are no
> linux-image* debs mentioned in list-cd indeed. linux got uploaded on
> Saturday, but linux-signed-* only came in on Monday, which is weekly
> image build day. Not sure that explains everything though.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
The Fri Nov 29 first Daily build fails in the same fashion:
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/20241129-1/amd64/iso-cd/debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso
and its list-cd also has no linux-image-* debs:
https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/daily-builds/daily/20241129-1/amd64/list-cd/debian-testing-amd64-netinst.list.gz
So I don't think it is a timing issue.
Thank you!
Daniel Lewart
Urbana, Illinois
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-07 21:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JR9B7-euQa-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377279 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2024-11-28):
> Looping in debian-cd@, who is responsible for image builds. There are
> no linux-image* debs mentioned in list-cd indeed. linux got uploaded
> on Saturday, but linux-signed-* only came in on Monday, which is
> weekly image build day. Not sure that explains everything though.
This looks like some size issue.
Using easy-build locally, I can build an amd64 NETINST for bookworm just
fine, which includes linux-image-* packages (metapackage + expected real
package), but attempting a sid build results in missing linux-image-*
packages.
The sid log mentions:
CD 1 filled with 845 packages, 325632 blocks, 666894336 bytes
while list.mid mentions:
891:amd64:main:linux-image-6.11.10-amd64:104175924:linux
892:amd64:main:linux-image-amd64:1464:
Right now I'm seeing modules for 10 kernel ABIs, that can't help. I lost
count of how critical it is to have firmware-nvidia-graphics available
(I thought it wasn't of much use, and was initially expected not to move
to nff for bookworm, which it did eventually anyway), but that one alone
steals 30+ MB of space before linux-image-*.
I haven't looked deeper at this point, maybe we have some other kinds of
“duplication” (not sure the t64 thing is over at this point, but I could
imagine how we might pull t64 and pre-t64 libraries until everything is
successfully rebuilt against the t64 ones).
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-08 00:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JRbMB-ew91-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377826 |
Cyril and Phil,
Thank you both for your efforts to solve this.
On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 2:29 PM Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2024-11-28):
> > Looping in debian-cd@, who is responsible for image builds. There are
> > no linux-image* debs mentioned in list-cd indeed. linux got uploaded
> > on Saturday, but linux-signed-* only came in on Monday, which is
> > weekly image build day. Not sure that explains everything though.
>
> This looks like some size issue.
>
> Using easy-build locally, I can build an amd64 NETINST for bookworm just
> fine, which includes linux-image-* packages (metapackage + expected real
> package), but attempting a sid build results in missing linux-image-*
> packages.
>
> The sid log mentions:
>
> CD 1 filled with 845 packages, 325632 blocks, 666894336 bytes
>
> while list.mid mentions:
>
> 891:amd64:main:linux-image-6.11.10-amd64:104175924:linux
> 892:amd64:main:linux-image-amd64:1464:
>
> Right now I'm seeing modules for 10 kernel ABIs, that can't help. I lost
> count of how critical it is to have firmware-nvidia-graphics available
> (I thought it wasn't of much use, and was initially expected not to move
> to nff for bookworm, which it did eventually anyway), but that one alone
> steals 30+ MB of space before linux-image-*.
>
> I haven't looked deeper at this point, maybe we have some other kinds of
> “duplication” (not sure the t64 thing is over at this point, but I could
> imagine how we might pull t64 and pre-t64 libraries until everything is
> successfully rebuilt against the t64 ones).
Q.v., #1084789 - debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso has multiple
versions of module udebs:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1084789
Thanks again,
Daniel Lewart
Urbana, Illinois
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-08 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JRbWh-ewfz-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377832 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> (2024-12-07): > Q.v., #1084789 - debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso has multiple > versions of module udebs: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1084789 Yes, that's what I alluded to, and that's something I'm quite aware of, given I did forward this report to this very list… Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-08 00:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JRcz0-ewIc-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377826 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> (2024-12-07): > Right now I'm seeing modules for 10 kernel ABIs, that can't help. After a quick look, I suppose we could extract the kernel ABI(s) from MANIFEST.udebs, matching kernel-image-(.+)\s, and focusing on including only the relevant modules. Most architectures have a single kernel-image but not all of them (mips64el notably). Additionally, given how critical it is to have linux-image-* available on netinst images, I think we should break the build if no such packages make it into those images. We have a lot of #ifdefs in tools/generate_di+k_list and some archs have multiple linux-image-* metapackages pulled, so maybe it'd be safer to check against the intermediary list I mentioned before (list.mid), making sure all linux-image-* packages it contains made it onto the disk? But a simple “no linux-image-* packages at all? surely broken!” heuristic would already be a net win? > I lost count of how critical it is to have firmware-nvidia-graphics > available (I thought it wasn't of much use, and was initially expected > not to move to nff for bookworm, which it did eventually anyway), but > that one alone steals 30+ MB of space before linux-image-*. Leaving that aside for now. > I haven't looked deeper at this point, maybe we have some other kinds of > “duplication” (not sure the t64 thing is over at this point, but I could > imagine how we might pull t64 and pre-t64 libraries until everything is > successfully rebuilt against the t64 ones). Leaving that aside for now. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Lewart <lewart3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-09 12:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <JRJXX-fnoN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377826 |
Cyril, et al, On Sat, Dec 7, 2024 at 2:29 PM Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote: > ... > I haven't looked deeper at this point, maybe we have some other kinds of > “duplication” (not sure the t64 thing is over at this point, but I could > imagine how we might pull t64 and pre-t64 libraries until everything is > successfully rebuilt against the t64 ones). > ... Looking at the Dec 9, 2024 debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso ... All t64 files combined use 10 MiB. However, I did find 215 MiB of exact duplicate files. See below. All have copies in the firmware directory, except for the three vmlinuz files. And the multiple versions in pool/main/l/linux-signed-amd64 use about 300 MiB. Thank you! Daniel Lewart Urbana, Illinois --- 61319148 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-marvell-prestera_20240909-2_all.deb 61319148 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-marvell-prestera_20240909-2_all.deb 39479420 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-nvidia-graphics_20240909-2_all.deb 39479420 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-nvidia-graphics_20240909-2_all.deb 24724624 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-atheros_20240909-2_all.deb 24724624 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-atheros_20240909-2_all.deb 14023476 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-iwlwifi_20240909-2_all.deb 14023476 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-iwlwifi_20240909-2_all.deb 12504196 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-amd-graphics_20240909-2_all.deb 12504196 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-amd-graphics_20240909-2_all.deb 10024896 Dec 8 21:20 install.amd/gtk/vmlinuz 10024896 Dec 8 21:20 install.amd/vmlinuz 10024896 Dec 8 21:20 install.amd/xen/vmlinuz 8810092 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-mediatek_20240909-2_all.deb 8810092 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-mediatek_20240909-2_all.deb 7107380 Nov 14 20:48 firmware/intel-microcode_3.20241112.1_amd64.deb i7107380 Nov 14 20:48 pool/non-free-firmware/i/intel-microcode/intel-microcode_3.20241112.1_amd64.deb 6515592 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-intel-graphics_20240909-2_all.deb 6515592 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-intel-graphics_20240909-2_all.deb 5375948 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-brcm80211_20240909-2_all.deb 5375948 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-brcm80211_20240909-2_all.deb 4257984 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-qlogic_20240909-2_all.deb 4257984 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-qlogic_20240909-2_all.deb 4250772 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-misc-nonfree_20240909-2_all.deb 4250772 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-misc-nonfree_20240909-2_all.deb 3618928 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-libertas_20240909-2_all.deb 3618928 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-libertas_20240909-2_all.deb 2573948 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-realtek_20240909-2_all.deb 2573948 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-realtek_20240909-2_all.deb 1760792 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-netronome_20240909-2_all.deb 1760792 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-netronome_20240909-2_all.deb 1756296 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-bnx2x_20240909-2_all.deb 1756296 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-bnx2x_20240909-2_all.deb 1344400 Nov 16 07:48 firmware/firmware-sof-signed_2024.09.1-1_all.deb 1344400 Nov 16 07:48 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-sof/firmware-sof-signed_2024.09.1-1_all.deb 1291996 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-netxen_20240909-2_all.deb 1291996 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-netxen_20240909-2_all.deb 827688 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-intel-sound_20240909-2_all.deb 827688 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-intel-sound_20240909-2_all.deb 732004 May 29 2024 firmware/dahdi-firmware-nonfree_2.11.1.0.20170917-2.1_all.deb 732004 May 29 2024 pool/non-free-firmware/d/dahdi-firmware/dahdi-firmware-nonfree_2.11.1.0.20170917-2.1_all.deb 699336 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-cavium_20240909-2_all.deb 699336 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-cavium_20240909-2_all.deb 445688 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-intel-misc_20240909-2_all.deb 445688 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-intel-misc_20240909-2_all.deb 373300 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-siano_20240909-2_all.deb 373300 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-siano_20240909-2_all.deb 320276 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-myricom_20240909-2_all.deb 320276 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-myricom_20240909-2_all.deb 298244 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-ipw2x00_20240909-2_all.deb 298244 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-ipw2x00_20240909-2_all.deb 265808 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-cirrus_20240909-2_all.deb 265808 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-cirrus_20240909-2_all.deb 189184 May 25 2024 firmware/bluez-firmware_1.2-11.1_all.deb 189184 May 25 2024 pool/non-free-firmware/b/bluez-firmware/bluez-firmware_1.2-11.1_all.deb 173132 Aug 21 21:54 firmware/amd64-microcode_3.20240820.1_amd64.deb 173132 Aug 21 21:54 pool/non-free-firmware/a/amd64-microcode/amd64-microcode_3.20240820.1_amd64.deb 156600 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-ivtv_20240909-2_all.deb 156600 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-ivtv_20240909-2_all.deb 151820 Oct 30 10:07 firmware/firmware-bnx2_20240909-2_all.deb 151820 Oct 30 10:07 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-nonfree/firmware-bnx2_20240909-2_all.deb 146648 Jun 9 2024 firmware/atmel-firmware_1.3-7.1_all.deb 146648 Jun 9 2024 pool/non-free-firmware/a/atmel-firmware/atmel-firmware_1.3-7.1_all.deb 47056 Jun 8 2024 firmware/firmware-ath9k-htc_1.4.0-108-gd856466+dfsg1-1.5_all.deb 47056 Jun 8 2024 pool/main/o/open-ath9k-htc-firmware/firmware-ath9k-htc_1.4.0-108-gd856466+dfsg1-1.5_all.deb 17244 Jun 16 17:43 firmware/firmware-linux-free_20240610-1_all.deb 17244 Jun 16 17:43 pool/main/f/firmware-free/firmware-linux-free_20240610-1_all.deb 15052 Jun 5 2024 firmware/firmware-carl9170_1.9.9-399-gcd480b9-1.2_all.deb 15052 Jun 5 2024 pool/main/c/carl9170fw/firmware-carl9170_1.9.9-399-gcd480b9-1.2_all.deb 12720 Jul 12 22:09 firmware/firmware-zd1211_1.5-11_all.deb 12720 Jul 12 22:09 pool/non-free-firmware/z/zd1211-firmware/firmware-zd1211_1.5-11_all.deb 8996 Jul 14 16:47 firmware/firmware-ast_20140808-8_all.deb 8996 Jul 14 16:47 pool/non-free-firmware/f/firmware-ast/firmware-ast_20140808-8_all.deb 8524 Nov 30 17:29 firmware/firmware-b43-installer_019-13_all.deb 8524 Nov 30 17:29 pool/contrib/b/b43-fwcutter/firmware-b43-installer_019-13_all.deb 7580 Nov 30 17:29 firmware/firmware-b43legacy-installer_019-13_all.deb 7580 Nov 30 17:29 pool/contrib/b/b43-fwcutter/firmware-b43legacy-installer_019-13_all.deb ###
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Debian Bug Tracking System" <owner@bugs.debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-15 18:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Processed (with 1 error): Re: Bug#1084789: debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso has multiple versions of module udebs |
| Message-ID | <JU0rD-hfpK-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377278 |
Processing control commands: > forcemerge 1088605 1084789 Bug #1088605 [installation-reports] installation-reports: No installable kernel was found in the defined APT sources Unable to merge bugs because: package of #1084789 is 'cdimage.debian.org' not 'installation-reports' Failed to forcibly merge 1088605: Did not alter merged bugs. -- 1084789: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1084789 1088605: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1088605 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-15 18:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Bug#1088605: Bug#1084789: debian-testing-amd64-netinst.iso has multiple versions of module udebs |
| Message-ID | <JU0rD-hfpK-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #377278 |
Control: forcemerge 1088605 1084789 (#1088605 is very clearly caused by the many sets of udebs, I think) On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 04:38:57AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >Cc += ftp team (for input), kernel team (for information) ACK, thanks - should have thought of that! >Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> (2024-12-15): >> I think there's a problem here in (the archive|the kernel packaging), >> as far as I can see. Look at >> >> https://packages.debian.org/source/unstable/linux-signed-amd64 >> >> and you'll see that right now the linux-signed-amd64 (6.12.3+1) source >> package claims to build modules for all of the following kernel >> ABIs. > >No, it does not. > >> Picking crypto-dm-modules-* as an example: >> >> * crypto-modules-6.10.9-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.10.9-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.10.11-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.10.11-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.10.12-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.10.12-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.2-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.2-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.4-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.4-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.5-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.5-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.6-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.6-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.7-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.7-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.9-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.9-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.10-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.11.10-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.12.3-amd64-di >> * crypto-modules-6.12.3-amd64-di > >That's just how packages.d.o represents things; the tracker page is >less misleading. Ah, OK. That's an unfortunate display issue there. :-( >> debian-cd just pulls in all the modules in a release, expecting that >> to be a sensible set. > >Any thoughts about my proposal to lift that expectation? That looks eminently possible as a workaround at the very least. Working on it now. And yes: we should definitely ensure that the first image in each set has linux-image-$foo and all dependencies. And fail the build otherwise - this is critical, as you say! >> WTH is happening here? > >A number of source versions are being kept for some reason: > > $ rmadison linux-signed-amd64 -s unstable > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.10.9+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.10.11+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.10.12+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.11.2+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.11.4+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.11.5+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.11.6+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.11.7+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.11.9+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.11.10+1 | unstable | source > linux-signed-amd64 | 6.12.3+1 | unstable | source > >Note: this isn't a case of Extra-Source-Only fun. > >(Another way to see this is to `apt-cache showsrc linux` in a sid >environment, you'll see the many versions.) > >Binaries stay around and nothing seems to show up in the cruft report. Nod, looking in sid here: $ zgrep -c "Package: linux-signed-amd64" /mirror/debian/dists/unstable/main/source/Sources.gz 11 ftp folks: this looks like a problem with cruft building up for some reason? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.rc
csiph-web