Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #238863 > unrolled thread

Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-17 13:30 +0200
    Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2021-08-17 14:10 +0200
      Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-17 15:10 +0200
        Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-17 15:20 +0200
        Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-08-17 15:30 +0200
        Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-17 16:10 +0200
          Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-08-17 21:20 +0200
            Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-08-18 13:30 +0200
      Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-17 15:10 +0200
        Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-17 15:30 +0200
      Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-08-18 04:10 +0200
    Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-08-17 18:10 +0200
      Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-08-17 19:40 +0200
        Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-08-17 19:50 +0200
        Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-17 19:50 +0200
        Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready  for bullseye) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-08-18 13:40 +0200
          Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2021-08-18 14:30 +0200
            Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye) Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-08-18 15:10 +0200
              Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting  ready for bullseye) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-08-19 14:30 +0200
                Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye) Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-08-20 11:30 +0200
                Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready  for bullseye) piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-08-20 13:00 +0200
                  Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting  ready for bullseye) Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-20 13:50 +0200
                    Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready  for bullseye) piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-08-20 15:40 +0200
                      Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting  ready for bullseye) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-08-21 02:40 +0200
            Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting  ready for bullseye) songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2021-08-19 14:50 +0200
          Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting  ready for bullseye) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-08-18 18:30 +0200
            Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting  ready for bullseye) "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-08-18 23:20 +0200
      Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-17 23:00 +0200
        Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-17 23:00 +0200
          Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-08-17 23:50 +0200
            Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-18 03:40 +0200
          Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-18 02:10 +0200
            Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Kushal Kumaran <kushal@locationd.net> - 2021-08-18 03:40 +0200
        Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-08-18 00:10 +0200
          Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-08-18 00:50 +0200
            Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2021-08-18 01:30 +0200
              Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-08-19 07:40 +0200
            Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-08-18 03:00 +0200
              Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2021-08-18 05:30 +0200
              Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-18 09:00 +0200
                Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-08-18 13:10 +0200
            Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-18 03:50 +0200
              Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-08-18 04:10 +0200
                Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2021-08-18 09:10 +0200
                  Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2021-08-18 10:20 +0200
                    Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2021-08-18 14:10 +0200
                      Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-18 19:30 +0200
                Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2021-08-18 09:50 +0200
                  Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2021-08-18 10:40 +0200
                    Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-08-20 20:20 +0200
                  Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye piorunz <piorunz@gmx.com> - 2021-08-18 12:40 +0200
                  Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2021-08-19 18:00 +0200
            Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2021-08-18 12:40 +0200
          Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye Polyna-Maude Racicot-Summerside <debian@polynamaude.com> - 2021-08-19 07:30 +0200
    Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2021-08-17 21:10 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#238863 — Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye

Greetings all;

I just installed another sata controller and 4 1 T-byte Samsung SSD's.

The controller claims to be a 15 port port expander, but only 6 are 
bonded out, and collectively show up at ata7 in dmesg.

They show up as /dev/sde/f/g/h but have not otherwise been touched.

So I thought I'd make sure I was up to date, annd possibly install some 
raid-ish stuff to prepare this array for use as /home in the bullseye 
install, but something is ay least 5000% aglay.

sudo apt update says it wants to gut much of the system and upgrade 2588 
packages. Yet my repo list looks like its normal stretch.

What is going on? Do I wind up on buster or should I kiss it all goodbye?

Thanks.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#238867

Gene Heskett wrote: 
> Greetings all;
> 
> I just installed another sata controller and 4 1 T-byte Samsung SSD's.
> 
> The controller claims to be a 15 port port expander, but only 6 are 
> bonded out, and collectively show up at ata7 in dmesg.
> 
> They show up as /dev/sde/f/g/h but have not otherwise been touched.
> 
> So I thought I'd make sure I was up to date, annd possibly install some 
> raid-ish stuff to prepare this array for use as /home in the bullseye 
> install, but something is ay least 5000% aglay.
> 
> sudo apt update says it wants to gut much of the system and upgrade 2588 
> packages. Yet my repo list looks like its normal stretch.
> 
> What is going on? Do I wind up on buster or should I kiss it all goodbye?

Tell us more about what you're doing, but also remember that you
can't skip stable versions in an upgrade - you need to upgrade
from stretch to buster, then to bullseye.

-dsr-

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238869

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:01:32AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Tell me where to read about an insitu upgrade from stretch to buster,

https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/

> root@coyote:~$ apt update
> Hit:1 http://security.debian.org stretch/updates InRelease
> Hit:2 http://linuxcnc.org stretch InRelease
> Hit:3 https://deb.debian.org/debian oldstable InRelease
> Hit:4 
> http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0/debian 
> stretch InRelease
> Hit:5 http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/debian 
> stretch InRelease
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> 2588 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them.
> 
> 2 hours later it still wants to do that. That is enough to put me on 
> buster. IF it works.

You literally have the word "oldstable" in your sources.list for your
main Debian repository?  That's a really unsound practice.  It will lead
to unexpected release upgrades (or worse, unexpected *failed* release
upgrades).

You also have multiple third-party repositories in your sources.list.
It's strongly recommended that you remove those during the release
upgrade.  You may or may not also have to remove the *packages* that
came from them.  It'll be on an "at your own risk" basis if you don't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238872

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:08:43AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:01:32AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Tell me where to read about an insitu upgrade from stretch to buster,
> 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/

Whoops.  Google gave me the wrong link.

https://www.debian.org/releases/buster/amd64/release-notes/

> > root@coyote:~$ apt update
> > Hit:1 http://security.debian.org stretch/updates InRelease
> > Hit:2 http://linuxcnc.org stretch InRelease
> > Hit:3 https://deb.debian.org/debian oldstable InRelease
> > Hit:4 
> > http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0/debian 
> > stretch InRelease
> > Hit:5 http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/debian 
> > stretch InRelease
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > 2588 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them.
> > 
> > 2 hours later it still wants to do that. That is enough to put me on 
> > buster. IF it works.
> 
> You literally have the word "oldstable" in your sources.list for your
> main Debian repository?  That's a really unsound practice.  It will lead
> to unexpected release upgrades (or worse, unexpected *failed* release
> upgrades).
> 
> You also have multiple third-party repositories in your sources.list.
> It's strongly recommended that you remove those during the release
> upgrade.  You may or may not also have to remove the *packages* that
> came from them.  It'll be on an "at your own risk" basis if you don't.
> 

-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238874

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-08-17 9:08 a.m., Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:01:32AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Tell me where to read about an insitu upgrade from stretch to buster,
> 
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/
> 
>> root@coyote:~$ apt update
>> Hit:1 http://security.debian.org stretch/updates InRelease
>> Hit:2 http://linuxcnc.org stretch InRelease
>> Hit:3 https://deb.debian.org/debian oldstable InRelease
>> Hit:4 
>> http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0/debian 
>> stretch InRelease
>> Hit:5 http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/debian 
>> stretch InRelease
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> Building dependency tree
>> Reading state information... Done
>> 2588 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them.
>>
>> 2 hours later it still wants to do that. That is enough to put me on 
>> buster. IF it works.
> 
> You literally have the word "oldstable" in your sources.list for your
> main Debian repository?  That's a really unsound practice.  It will lead
> to unexpected release upgrades (or worse, unexpected *failed* release
> upgrades).
By using *oldstable* or other type of reference based on version instead
of suite, of you risk many problem.
What's happening in your case is that *oldstable* used to be *stretch*
and is now *buster*. So you are using a *buster* repository in your
*stretch* installation. That's a plea for problems.

Before *bullseye* release:
*testing* -> *bullseye*
*stable* -> *buster*
*oldstable* -> *stretch*
*oldoldstable* -> *jessie*

After *bullseye* release:
*testing* -> *bookworm*
*stable* -> *bullseye*
*oldstable* -> *buster*
*oldoldstable* -> *stretch*

You should always refer to stable name like *buster*,*stretch*, etc.

> 
> You also have multiple third-party repositories in your sources.list.
> It's strongly recommended that you remove those during the release
> upgrade.  You may or may not also have to remove the *packages* that
> came from them.  It'll be on an "at your own risk" basis if you don't.
> 

-- 
Polyna-Maude R.-Summerside
-Be smart, Be wise, Support opensource development

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238878

On Tuesday 17 August 2021 09:08:43 Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:01:32AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Tell me where to read about an insitu upgrade from stretch to
> > buster,
>
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/
>
> > root@coyote:~$ apt update
> > Hit:1 http://security.debian.org stretch/updates InRelease
> > Hit:2 http://linuxcnc.org stretch InRelease
> > Hit:3 https://deb.debian.org/debian oldstable InRelease
> > Hit:4
> > http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0
> >.0/debian stretch InRelease
> > Hit:5
> > http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/debian
> > stretch InRelease
> > Reading package lists... Done
> > Building dependency tree
> > Reading state information... Done
> > 2588 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see
> > them.
> >
> > 2 hours later it still wants to do that. That is enough to put me on
> > buster. IF it works.
>
> You literally have the word "oldstable" in your sources.list for your
> main Debian repository?  That's a really unsound practice.  It will
> lead to unexpected release upgrades (or worse, unexpected *failed*
> release upgrades).
>
Now I am doubly confused, according to what I'm looking at in the 
synaptic repo list, I do have that in the first entry, disabled now. I 
sure don't recall adding that as it had to be added since Saturday.  And 
now its only two to be updated, lightning and t-bird, not 2588 packages.

> You also have multiple third-party repositories in your sources.list.
> It's strongly recommended that you remove those during the release
> upgrade.  You may or may not also have to remove the *packages* that
> came from them.  It'll be on an "at your own risk" basis if you don't.

Several folks on the TDE mailing list have already reported no problems 
doing the update. Ditto for linuxcnc, although they may have to build a 
realtime kernel before linuxcnc will run right again. But thats a 
special case for the other machines here, and not applicable to this one 
which isn't running machinery heavier than a tabloid sized brother 
printer.
 

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238907

On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 10:07:18 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:

> [Subject: Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye]

You have a habit of running systems about one release behind the
current stable, so can you just check that you really mean to
upgrade your machine to bullseye (11), and not buster (10).

(You're currently on stretch (9), and were still running a
wheezy (7) system until at least the end of last year.)

> On Tuesday 17 August 2021 09:08:43 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:01:32AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Tell me where to read about an insitu upgrade from stretch to
> > > buster,
> >
> > https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/amd64/release-notes/
> >
> > > root@coyote:~$ apt update
> > > Hit:1 http://security.debian.org stretch/updates InRelease
> > > Hit:2 http://linuxcnc.org stretch InRelease
> > > Hit:3 https://deb.debian.org/debian oldstable InRelease
> > > Hit:4
> > > http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0
> > >.0/debian stretch InRelease
> > > Hit:5
> > > http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/debian
> > > stretch InRelease
> > > Reading package lists... Done
> > > Building dependency tree
> > > Reading state information... Done
> > > 2588 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see
> > > them.
> > >
> > > 2 hours later it still wants to do that. That is enough to put me on
> > > buster. IF it works.
> >
> > You literally have the word "oldstable" in your sources.list for your
> > main Debian repository?  That's a really unsound practice.  It will
> > lead to unexpected release upgrades (or worse, unexpected *failed*
> > release upgrades).
> >
> Now I am doubly confused, according to what I'm looking at in the 
> synaptic repo list, I do have that in the first entry, disabled now. I 
> sure don't recall adding that as it had to be added since Saturday.

AIUI nothing needed to have been added to your sources list on
Saturday. What did happen, and you appear not to have noticed,
is that the definition of "oldstable" changed under your feet
from "stretch" to "buster". So all of a sudden, you were 2588
packages out of date for your main repository.

> And 
> now its only two to be updated, lightning and t-bird, not 2588 packages.
> 
> > You also have multiple third-party repositories in your sources.list.
> > It's strongly recommended that you remove those during the release
> > upgrade.  You may or may not also have to remove the *packages* that
> > came from them.  It'll be on an "at your own risk" basis if you don't.
> 
> Several folks on the TDE mailing list have already reported no problems 
> doing the update.

You write "already reported" which implies that they're reporting on
a /recent/ upgrade, ∴ likely buster to bullseye. That's not the upgrade
that you are imminently involved with (ie stretch to buster), even if you
intend to upgrade further, to the new bullseye.

> Ditto for linuxcnc, although they may have to build a 
> realtime kernel before linuxcnc will run right again. But thats a 
> special case for the other machines here, and not applicable to this one 
> which isn't running machinery heavier than a tabloid sized brother 
> printer.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238952

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-08-17 at 15:11, David Wright wrote:

> On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 10:07:18 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:

>> On Tuesday 17 August 2021 09:08:43 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:01:32AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

>>> You literally have the word "oldstable" in your sources.list for
>>> your main Debian repository?  That's a really unsound practice.
>>> It will lead to unexpected release upgrades (or worse, unexpected
>>> *failed* release upgrades).
>>> 
>> Now I am doubly confused, according to what I'm looking at in the 
>> synaptic repo list, I do have that in the first entry, disabled
>> now. I sure don't recall adding that as it had to be added since
>> Saturday.
> 
> AIUI nothing needed to have been added to your sources list on 
> Saturday. What did happen, and you appear not to have noticed, is
> that the definition of "oldstable" changed under your feet from
> "stretch" to "buster". So all of a sudden, you were 2588 packages out
> of date for your main repository.

What I interpreted Gene's statement above as meaning is something closer
to "Although I found an entry in sources.list (as recognized by
synaptic's repo list) which specified oldstable, I don't remember adding
one; it would have to have been added since Saturday [for reasons not
specified], and I certainly don't remember doing it in that time-frame.".

The idea of such an entry having been already present does seem to fit
the reported observed behaviors better, but I don't want to dispute
Gene's reporting of his own remembered actions.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238870

On Tuesday 17 August 2021 08:05:27 Dan Ritter wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > I just installed another sata controller and 4 1 T-byte Samsung
> > SSD's.
> >
> > The controller claims to be a 15 port port expander, but only 6 are
> > bonded out, and collectively show up at ata7 in dmesg.
> >
> > They show up as /dev/sde/f/g/h but have not otherwise been touched.
> >
> > So I thought I'd make sure I was up to date, annd possibly install
> > some raid-ish stuff to prepare this array for use as /home in the
> > bullseye install, but something is ay least 5000% aglay.
> >
> > sudo apt update says it wants to gut much of the system and upgrade
> > 2588 packages. Yet my repo list looks like its normal stretch.
> >
> > What is going on? Do I wind up on buster or should I kiss it all
> > goodbye?
>
> Tell us more about what you're doing, but also remember that you
> can't skip stable versions in an upgrade - you need to upgrade
> from stretch to buster, then to bullseye.
>
> -dsr-

I am subbed Dan, don't need the Cc:

Tell me where to read about an insitu upgrade from stretch to buster, its 
running very well on 5 other machines here.

Or is that what apt wants to do this Monday morning by wanting to upgrade 
2588 packages? This is an uptodate stretch, last checked day before 
yesterdaty, aka Saturday, but now it wants to do this:

root@coyote:~$ apt update
Hit:1 http://security.debian.org stretch/updates InRelease
Hit:2 http://linuxcnc.org stretch InRelease
Hit:3 https://deb.debian.org/debian oldstable InRelease
Hit:4 
http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0/debian 
stretch InRelease
Hit:5 http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/debian 
stretch InRelease
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
2588 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them.

2 hours later it still wants to do that. That is enough to put me on 
buster. IF it works. That is the $64,000 question, will it work? Or has 
somebody misscopied the apt list from buster to stretch?

Thanks Dan.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238873

On Tuesday 17 August 2021 09:01:32 Gene Heskett wrote:
My mis-steak, its Tuesday not Monday.
> On Tuesday 17 August 2021 08:05:27 Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Greetings all;
> > >
> > > I just installed another sata controller and 4 1 T-byte Samsung
> > > SSD's.
> > >
> > > The controller claims to be a 15 port port expander, but only 6
> > > are bonded out, and collectively show up at ata7 in dmesg.
> > >
> > > They show up as /dev/sde/f/g/h but have not otherwise been
> > > touched.
> > >
> > > So I thought I'd make sure I was up to date, annd possibly install
> > > some raid-ish stuff to prepare this array for use as /home in the
> > > bullseye install, but something is ay least 5000% aglay.
> > >
> > > sudo apt update says it wants to gut much of the system and
> > > upgrade 2588 packages. Yet my repo list looks like its normal
> > > stretch.
> > >
> > > What is going on? Do I wind up on buster or should I kiss it all
> > > goodbye?
> >
> > Tell us more about what you're doing, but also remember that you
> > can't skip stable versions in an upgrade - you need to upgrade
> > from stretch to buster, then to bullseye.
> >
> > -dsr-
>
> I am subbed Dan, don't need the Cc:
>
> Tell me where to read about an insitu upgrade from stretch to buster,
> its running very well on 5 other machines here.
>
> Or is that what apt wants to do this Monday morning by wanting to
> upgrade 2588 packages? This is an uptodate stretch, last checked day
> before yesterdaty, aka Saturday, but now it wants to do this:
>
> root@coyote:~$ apt update
> Hit:1 http://security.debian.org stretch/updates InRelease
> Hit:2 http://linuxcnc.org stretch InRelease
> Hit:3 https://deb.debian.org/debian oldstable InRelease
> Hit:4
> http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0
>/debian stretch InRelease
> Hit:5
> http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/debian
> stretch InRelease
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> 2588 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see
> them.
>
> 2 hours later it still wants to do that. That is enough to put me on
> buster. IF it works. That is the $64,000 question, will it work? Or
> has somebody misscopied the apt list from buster to stretch?
>
> Thanks Dan.
>
> Cheers, Gene Heskett


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238936

Dan Ritter wrote:
...
> Tell us more about what you're doing, but also remember that you
> can't skip stable versions in an upgrade - you need to upgrade
> from stretch to buster, then to bullseye.

  yes.

  plus it is good to get rid of cruft if you don't need it so 
i would back up the important stuff to another media or 
partition and then do a fresh install.


  songbird

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238890

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 07:24:45AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
> 
> I just installed another sata controller and 4 1 T-byte Samsung SSD's.
> 
> The controller claims to be a 15 port port expander, but only 6 are 
> bonded out, and collectively show up at ata7 in dmesg.
> 
> They show up as /dev/sde/f/g/h but have not otherwise been touched.
> 
> So I thought I'd make sure I was up to date, annd possibly install some 
> raid-ish stuff to prepare this array for use as /home in the bullseye 
> install, but something is ay least 5000% aglay.
> 
> sudo apt update says it wants to gut much of the system and upgrade 2588 
> packages. Yet my repo list looks like its normal stretch.
> 
> What is going on? Do I wind up on buster or should I kiss it all goodbye?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Cheers, Gene Heskett
> -- 
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
>  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
> If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
>  - Louis D. Brandeis
> Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
> 

I think the others have mostly covered this but: 

Do the update to Buster - take it as slow as you need to. Bring it bang
up to date.

For the Buster to Bullseye -

READ RELEASE NOTES :)

Use apt.

Change sources list. https://wiki.debian.org/SourcesList

apt update

apt upgrade 

[That will upgrade any services / packages that can be upgraded 
in place without compromising anything else.]

apt full-upgrade

[Which will do the final upgrade and sort otu the warning messages about 
distribution has changed etc.]

Good luck, should be relatively straightforward.

Andy Cater

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238897

On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 16:00:57 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

[...]

> I think the others have mostly covered this but: 

But it bears repeating for the OP and others.

Comment out *everything* in sources.list and then edit to  have only

  deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch main contrib non-free

Update and upgrade.

Chande stretch to buster and do the same again.

Then edit buster to bullseye and repeat.

> Do the update to Buster - take it as slow as you need to. Bring it bang
> up to date.
> 
> For the Buster to Bullseye -
> 
> READ RELEASE NOTES :)

Of course! Do users not do this as a standard procedure? :)

-- 
Brian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238898

On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 13:42:25 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 06:36:15PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> > Comment out *everything* in sources.list and then edit to  have only
> > 
> >   deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch main contrib non-free
> > 
> > Update and upgrade.
> 
> ... and then make all the changes necessary for stretch.
> 
> > Chande stretch to buster and do the same again.
> 
> ... and then make all the changes necessary for buster.
> 
> > Then edit buster to bullseye and repeat.
> 
> ... and then make all the changes necessary for bullseye.
> 
> If you're wondering what you need to change in each release:

Fair enough. I have never been in a situation like this. The OP
has a habit of engineering such.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238899

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 06:36:15PM +0100, Brian wrote:
> Comment out *everything* in sources.list and then edit to  have only
> 
>   deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ stretch main contrib non-free
> 
> Update and upgrade.

... and then make all the changes necessary for stretch.

> Chande stretch to buster and do the same again.

... and then make all the changes necessary for buster.

> Then edit buster to bullseye and repeat.

... and then make all the changes necessary for bullseye.

If you're wondering what you need to change in each release:

> On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 16:00:57 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > READ RELEASE NOTES :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238954 — Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2021-08-17 at 13:36, Brian wrote:

> On Tue 17 Aug 2021 at 16:00:57 +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:

>> Do the update to Buster - take it as slow as you need to. Bring it
>> bang up to date.
>> 
>> For the Buster to Bullseye -
>> 
>> READ RELEASE NOTES :)
> 
> Of course! Do users not do this as a standard procedure? :)

I don't - because I don't upgrade from one stable release to another; I
track testing, continuously, throughout the development cycle. As such,
there is no point in the release cycle at which it makes sense for me to
read the release notes; at the start of the release cycle they don't
exist yet, so there's nothing for me to read, and by the time they're
finalized and the release is ready, I'm already fully upgraded.

It always bothers me to see "read the release notes!" hammered on as a
reasonable thing to expect users to do, in terms which presents users
who fail to do so as unreasonable. It probably does make sense in the
relatively limited (if also probably relatively common) case of
upgrading from (old)stable to stable, but it is certainly not so
universal a matter as to make failing to do it so inappropriate that
hammering on it in such absolute terms becomes appropriate.

IMO, "fixing" an upgrade-related issue by documenting it in the release
notes is not *and cannot be* enough; it has to be fixed in the relevant
package(s), whether by making it not happen or by documenting it (and/or
pointing to a place where documentation of that specific issue can be
found) in a place which will be seen at the time when the upgrade is
performed.

Also IMO, the cases in which it is reasonable to expect users to seek
out and read release notes before upgrading are quite limited; the
release notes are useful as reference documentation for potential issues
and for planning an upgrade if one wants to do that, but reading the
release notes is not an inherent part of the upgrade process, and any
design which assumes that it is or should be is IMO a broken design.

(That latter is true for any product, not just for Debian.)

At the very least, if you want to get people to read the release notes
before upgrading, you should arrange for the upgrade process to include
a prominent "have you read the release notes yet?" prompt (with an
option to cancel) before anything irrevocable is done. People could
still ignore that, but it would at least bring the idea of reading the
release notes into the actual upgrade procedure itself, rather than
being an out-of-band thing which people have to think of and go out of
their way to do manually before starting the upgrade.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238961 — Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye)

On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 07:39:26 AM The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2021-08-17 at 13:36, Brian wrote:
> > Of course! Do users not do this as a standard procedure? :)
> 
> I don't - because I don't upgrade from one stable release to another; I
> track testing, continuously, throughout the development cycle. As such,
> there is no point in the release cycle at which it makes sense for me to
> read the release notes; at the start of the release cycle they don't
> exist yet, so there's nothing for me to read, and by the time they're
> finalized and the release is ready, I'm already fully upgraded.
> 
> It always bothers me to see "read the release notes!" hammered on as a
> reasonable thing to expect users to do, in terms which presents users
> who fail to do so as unreasonable. It probably does make sense in the
> relatively limited (if also probably relatively common) case of
> upgrading from (old)stable to stable, but it is certainly not so
> universal a matter as to make failing to do it so inappropriate that
> hammering on it in such absolute terms becomes appropriate.
> 
> IMO, "fixing" an upgrade-related issue by documenting it in the release
> notes is not *and cannot be* enough; it has to be fixed in the relevant
> package(s), whether by making it not happen or by documenting it (and/or
> pointing to a place where documentation of that specific issue can be
> found) in a place which will be seen at the time when the upgrade is
> performed.
> 
> Also IMO, the cases in which it is reasonable to expect users to seek
> out and read release notes before upgrading are quite limited; the
> release notes are useful as reference documentation for potential issues
> and for planning an upgrade if one wants to do that, but reading the
> release notes is not an inherent part of the upgrade process, and any
> design which assumes that it is or should be is IMO a broken design.
> 
> (That latter is true for any product, not just for Debian.)
> 
> At the very least, if you want to get people to read the release notes
> before upgrading, you should arrange for the upgrade process to include
> a prominent "have you read the release notes yet?" prompt (with an
> option to cancel) before anything irrevocable is done. People could
> still ignore that, but it would at least bring the idea of reading the
> release notes into the actual upgrade procedure itself, rather than
> being an out-of-band thing which people have to think of and go out of
> their way to do manually before starting the upgrade.

+1 (to (almost?) everything written here (I'm not re-reading to confirm there 
are no exceptions)

I especially like the idea of a prompt during the actual upgrade (or something 
similar).

Aside: I have never (to the best of my recollection) done an upgrade from one 
version to the next, I install the new version on a clean disk (or new system) 
-- the only time I could envision doing an upgrade would be if stable became a 
rolling release.

But, if I did do an upgrade from one version to the next, it would not 
surprise me if I forgot to read the upgrade notes.

Hmm, why do I think that?  I mean, I almost always read the instructions / 
manuals and such that I get for a new product, but maybe not if it is a 
replacement for an existing product which I think I know how to use.  So, I 
guess I think that Debian is something I've used and already read the 
instructions (probably mostly as they existed ca. 2000 ;-)

Things that have come up since I read the instructions, etc. around that time 
are typically things that I "bump" into.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#238967 — Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye)

rhkramer@gmail.com writes:

> But, if I did do an upgrade from one version to the next, it would not 
> surprise me if I forgot to read the upgrade notes.

For me, the instructions for upgrading in the release notes are the only
way I know how to find out how to upgrade Debian from one release to the
next. I guess there might be other methods, I remember once upgrading
Ubuntu with a GUI tool that just popped up, Windows-like. But the
release notes are the only trustworthy docs I know of so I don't see
what else I could use.

And yes, the working upgrades are the reason I've stuck with Debian
since Hamm. My ever evolving desktop computer is on its second
installation now since I reinstalled when I switched to 64-bits
somewhere in the decade before last.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#239034 — Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye)

Anssi Saari wrote:
...
> And yes, the working upgrades are the reason I've stuck with Debian
> since Hamm. My ever evolving desktop computer is on its second
> installation now since I reinstalled when I switched to 64-bits
> somewhere in the decade before last.

  when i changed motherboards i figured it was worth a fresh
install, but otherwise i've been running testing for a long
time so reading release notes is often long past when the
changes have happened here.  instead i watch what is being
proposed during the upgrades and will read up on changes as
they come through.  sometimes a glitch will burn me but i 
have a separate bootable stable partition (and backups) so
i don't usually get too far out of whack.  :)


  songbird

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#239081 — Re: Reading of release notes (was Re: Still on stretch, getting ready for bullseye)

songbird <songbird@anthive.com> writes:

> Anssi Saari wrote:
> ...
>> And yes, the working upgrades are the reason I've stuck with Debian
>> since Hamm. My ever evolving desktop computer is on its second
>> installation now since I reinstalled when I switched to 64-bits
>> somewhere in the decade before last.

>   when i changed motherboards i figured it was worth a fresh
> install...

Interesting but I don't see that as a reason to reinstall, especially
Linux since it usually just keeps going. Well, barring new hardware
sometimes.

Personally I'm thinking of going to unstable as I can't seem to get
anywhere with my new video card but since I have Arch already installed,
perhaps not. Then again I spent about half an hour collecting scripts
and configs I need to copy over to Arch if I'm going to use it as a
daily driver. That work in the end is why I don't reinstall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web