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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #268278 > unrolled thread

Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox

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

Contents

  Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox "Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 00:30 +0100
    Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox Jean-François Bachelet <jfbachelet@free.fr> - 2024-03-15 05:10 +0100
    Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox Xiyue Deng <manphiz@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 07:10 +0100
      Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox "Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 11:10 +0100
        Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox Xiyue Deng <manphiz@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 21:00 +0100
          Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox "Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 22:20 +0100
            Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox Xiyue Deng <manphiz@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 23:40 +0100
              Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox "Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> - 2024-03-17 12:40 +0100
                Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2024-03-17 13:50 +0100
                  Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-03-17 14:00 +0100
                  Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox "Roy J. Tellason, Sr." <roy@rtellason.com> - 2024-03-17 18:20 +0100
                    Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2024-03-17 19:50 +0100
                  Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox "Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> - 2024-03-17 23:00 +0100
                    Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2024-03-17 23:50 +0100
                      Re: Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-03-18 05:30 +0100

#268278 — Bookworm Fasttrack and Virtualbox

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

Hello!

This evening I tried to install virtualbox into a fresh Bookworm install. I
followed the steps in Virtualbox's Debian Wiki entry. After set up
fasttrack repository successfully and issue a apt install virtualbox
command I get:



Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 virtualbox: Depends: python3 (< 3.10) but 3.11.2-1+b1 is to be installed
              Depends: python3.9 but it is not installable
              Depends: libgsoap-2.8.104 but it is not installable
              Depends: libssl1.1 (>= 1.1.1) but it is not installable
              Depends: libvpx6 (>= 1.6.0) but it is not installable
              Recommends: virtualbox-qt (= 7.0 .6-dfsg-1~fto11+1) but it is
not going to be installed
              Recommends: libqt5opengl5 (>= 5.0.2) but it is not going to
be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.



I was surprised by the python 3.9 dependency, it leads me to think
fasttrack repos are abandoned? What is the right way to install virtualbox
in Debian Bookworm?

Thanks in advance

Miguel A. Vallejo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#268286

Hello :)

Le 15/03/2024 à 00:26, Miguel A. Vallejo a écrit :
> Hello!
> 
> This evening I tried to install virtualbox into a fresh Bookworm 
> install. I followed the steps in Virtualbox's Debian Wiki entry. After 
> set up fasttrack repository successfully and issue a apt install 
> virtualbox command I get:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Reading state information... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>   virtualbox: Depends: python3 (< 3.10) but 3.11.2-1+b1 is to be installed
>                Depends: python3.9 but it is not installable
>                Depends: libgsoap-2.8.104 but it is not installable
>                Depends: libssl1.1 (>= 1.1.1) but it is not installable
>                Depends: libvpx6 (>= 1.6.0) but it is not installable
>                Recommends: virtualbox-qt (= 7.0 .6-dfsg-1~fto11+1) but 
> it is not going to be installed
>                Recommends: libqt5opengl5 (>= 5.0.2) but it is not going 
> to be installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised by the python 3.9 dependency, it leads me to think 
> fasttrack repos are abandoned? What is the right way to install 
> virtualbox in Debian Bookworm?
why not just go to virtualbox.org and download the deb install file ? no 
need for a repo there.

Jeff

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

#268287

"Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello!
>
> This evening I tried to install virtualbox into a fresh Bookworm install. I
> followed the steps in Virtualbox's Debian Wiki entry. After set up
> fasttrack repository successfully and issue a apt install virtualbox
> command I get:
>
>
>
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree... Done
> Reading state information... Done
> Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
> requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
> distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
> or been moved out of Incoming.
> The following information may help to resolve the situation:
>
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  virtualbox: Depends: python3 (< 3.10) but 3.11.2-1+b1 is to be installed
>               Depends: python3.9 but it is not installable
>               Depends: libgsoap-2.8.104 but it is not installable
>               Depends: libssl1.1 (>= 1.1.1) but it is not installable
>               Depends: libvpx6 (>= 1.6.0) but it is not installable
>               Recommends: virtualbox-qt (= 7.0 .6-dfsg-1~fto11+1) but it is
> not going to be installed
>               Recommends: libqt5opengl5 (>= 5.0.2) but it is not going to
> be installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
>
>
>
> I was surprised by the python 3.9 dependency, it leads me to think
> fasttrack repos are abandoned? What is the right way to install virtualbox
> in Debian Bookworm?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Miguel A. Vallejo

If you followed the fasttrack instruction on the website[1] literally,
you may be adding bullseye-fasttrack instead of bookworm-fasttrack where
the latter is what you wanted.

[1] https://fasttrack.debian.net/

-- 
Xiyue Deng

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

#268292

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

Xiyue Deng <manphiz@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> If you followed the fasttrack instruction on the website[1] literally,
> you may be adding bullseye-fasttrack instead of bookworm-fasttrack where
> the latter is what you wanted.
>
> [1] https://fasttrack.debian.net/
>
> --
> Xiyue Deng
>

Of course I did it for Bookworm. The fact that the website is not yet
updated for Bookworm is another thing that makes me think that fasttrack is
abandoned.

>

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

#268306

"Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> writes:

> Xiyue Deng <manphiz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If you followed the fasttrack instruction on the website[1] literally,
>> you may be adding bullseye-fasttrack instead of bookworm-fasttrack where
>> the latter is what you wanted.
>>
>> [1] https://fasttrack.debian.net/
>>
>> --
>> Xiyue Deng
>>
>
> Of course I did it for Bookworm. The fact that the website is not yet
> updated for Bookworm is another thing that makes me think that fasttrack is
> abandoned.
>
>>

What I'm saying is that your added entries in the sources.list file are
referencing bullseye-fasttrack instead of bookworm-fasttrack.  The
evidence is in your error message:

> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  virtualbox: Depends: python3 (< 3.10) but 3.11.2-1+b1 is to be installed
>               Depends: python3.9 but it is not installable
>               Depends: libgsoap-2.8.104 but it is not installable
>               Depends: libssl1.1 (>= 1.1.1) but it is not installable
>               Depends: libvpx6 (>= 1.6.0) but it is not installable
>               Recommends: virtualbox-qt (= 7.0 .6-dfsg-1~fto11+1) but it is
                                                           ^^^^^
> not going to be installed
>               Recommends: libqt5opengl5 (>= 5.0.2) but it is not going to
> be installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

See the version of virtualbox-qt has `fto11' instead of `fto12', while
looking at the repo I can find the build for fto12[1].  What's also
weird is that for all fasttrack supported releases I can only see
version 7.0.12 but no 7.0.6.  Anyway, can you paste your sources.list
entries for fasttrack?

[1] https://fasttrack.debian.net/debian-fasttrack/pool/contrib/v/virtualbox/virtualbox-qt_7.0.12-dfsg-1~fto12%2B1_amd64.deb

-- 
Xiyue Deng

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

#268310

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

Xiyue Deng (<manphiz@gmail.com>) wrote:

> See the version of virtualbox-qt has `fto11' instead of `fto12', while
> looking at the repo I can find the build for fto12[1].  What's also
> weird is that for all fasttrack supported releases I can only see
> version 7.0.12 but no 7.0.6.  Anyway, can you paste your sources.list
> entries for fasttrack?
>

This is getting weird, my entries for fasttrack are:

deb https://fasttrack.debian.net/debian-fasttrack/ bullseye-fasttrack main
contrib non-free
deb https://fasttrack.debian.net/debian-fasttrack/
bullseye-backports-staging main contrib non-free

Anyway, I added virtualbox's own repository and it worked just fine

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

#268315

"Miguel A. Vallejo" <ea4eoz@gmail.com> writes:

> Xiyue Deng (<manphiz@gmail.com>) wrote:
>
>> See the version of virtualbox-qt has `fto11' instead of `fto12', while
>> looking at the repo I can find the build for fto12[1].  What's also
>> weird is that for all fasttrack supported releases I can only see
>> version 7.0.12 but no 7.0.6.  Anyway, can you paste your sources.list
>> entries for fasttrack?
>>
>
> This is getting weird, my entries for fasttrack are:
>
> deb https://fasttrack.debian.net/debian-fasttrack/ bullseye-fasttrack main
> contrib non-free
> deb https://fasttrack.debian.net/debian-fasttrack/
> bullseye-backports-staging main contrib non-free

As I thought.  You should change "bullseye-fasttrack" to
"bookworm-fasttrack" and "bullseye-backports-staging" to
"bookworm-backports-staging", ensure you follow similar steps to enable
the backports repo[1], do an "apt update", and things should work.

That said, it would be better if fasttrack.debian.net provides
instructions per release.

[1] https://backports.debian.org/Instructions/
-- 
Xiyue Deng

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

#268339

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

Well... it seems my brain can't distinguish Bookworm from Bullseye.

Virtualbox is now installed from Fasttrack repository and is working fine.

Sorry for the inconveniences

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

#268342

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 12:35:33PM +0100, Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> Well... it seems my brain can't distinguish Bookworm from Bullseye.

It's not just you.  The use of three "b" names in a row (buster,
bullseye, bookworm) was in my opinion a poor decision.  I've taken
to calling the releases by their numbers (10, 11, 12) instead of
their codenames to avoid confusion wherever possible.

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

#268344

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

On 2024-03-17 at 08:48, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 12:35:33PM +0100, Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> 
>> Well... it seems my brain can't distinguish Bookworm from
>> Bullseye.
> 
> It's not just you.  The use of three "b" names in a row (buster,
> bullseye, bookworm) was in my opinion a poor decision.

I tend to concur.

The closest thing to a helpful mnemonic for it that I've found (which
isn't very close, and often isn't very helpful, given how frequently I
fail to remember it when I would need it) is that the names are in
reverse alphabetical order.

> I've taken to calling the releases by their numbers (10, 11, 12)
> instead of their codenames to avoid confusion wherever possible.

Because of the contexts (including, but not limited to, sources.list)
where you can't use those numbers, and have to use codenames instead,
that hasn't been helpful to me. The numbers also don't have any
intuitive correlation with the names, so mapping from one to another
requires looking them up in some appropriate document, which is
inconvenient enough that in practice it mostly won't be done.

-- 
   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]

#268348

On Sunday 17 March 2024 08:48:29 am Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 12:35:33PM +0100, Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> > Well... it seems my brain can't distinguish Bookworm from Bullseye.
> 
> It's not just you.  The use of three "b" names in a row (buster,
> bullseye, bookworm) was in my opinion a poor decision.  I've taken
> to calling the releases by their numbers (10, 11, 12) instead of
> their codenames to avoid confusion wherever possible.
 
The use of those codenames drives me nuts...

I don't,  for the most part,  have any idea what numeric version is being referred to,  and would far prefer to see those numbers used instead,  myself.


-- 
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space,  a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed.  --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James 
M Dakin

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

#268352

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 01:31:40PM -0400, Roy J. Tellason, Sr. wrote:
> On Sunday 17 March 2024 08:48:29 am Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 12:35:33PM +0100, Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> > > Well... it seems my brain can't distinguish Bookworm from Bullseye.
> > 
> > It's not just you.  The use of three "b" names in a row (buster,
> > bullseye, bookworm) was in my opinion a poor decision.  I've taken
> > to calling the releases by their numbers (10, 11, 12) instead of
> > their codenames to avoid confusion wherever possible.
>  
> The use of those codenames drives me nuts...
> 
> I don't,  for the most part,  have any idea what numeric version is being referred to,  and would far prefer to see those numbers used instead,  myself.
> 

It works both ways - there is a place for both to coexist. The one thing
that is consistently difficult is when people refer to "I have a system
running Debian stable" and you don't know _which_ version they're talking
about. 10, 11 and 12 have all been stable at some point: if someone says
"Oh, I've found an old system running stretch" I have some idea how old
it is.

Bear in mind that the first version of Debian to have a codename was one
of the earliest precisely *because* the numbers were problematic. (A third
party CD vendor put out "Debian 1.0" which was Debian 0.97 and a pre-release - 
the release proper had to be 1.1)

Debian has more or less dropped the importance of the number in the point
release space as significant. It doesn't make a great deal of difference
if you're running 12.4 or 12.5 unless you're significantly out of date and
haven't updated for months or years. The significance of the codename in
/etc/apt/sources.list is that it's an enduring token - it's easy to see
the difference between buster and bullseye when you see the word.

As a Debain developer, I'm watching the changes in unstable at the minute
to make Debian 64 bit time safe: it's taking longer than anyone would want
but I know that it's meant for Trixie not Forky. "The usrmerge transition 
has been talked about for several releases - it will likely be ready for 
Trixie but we might have to support some legacy provision into Forky (or
even Forky+1). i386 deprecation will happen in Trixie, with likely full
removal in Forky." (say) is meaningful to me even if I have to think
that Trixie (will be) Debian 13 at release and that Forky is the
as yet largely unplanned Debian 14.

That code name is stable for all stages of the release cycle and that's 
important, even as I don't know when the final releases will be.

Notably, Ubuntu has both a very defined release cycle and a defined series
of codenames in alphabetical order (except for Wily Wombat) and you have
to remember which versions are LTS. I know that Precise is newer than
older variants and older than Trusty but I couldn't tell you which 
versions are LTS from codenames alone. I just know to pick versions that 
are 14.04, 16.04, 18.04 etc. - likewise, I can't tell you know what the
end dates for ten year support are because that was only introduced latterly.
[Wily Wombat was 5.04, Nimble Numbat will be 24.04].

Other distributions have codenames that are effectively meaningless and
largely internal - Red Hat, anybody?  Debian tends to use both for
overlapping purposes.

For you as an end user - use whichever you feel happiest with.

All the best, as ever,

Andy
> 
> -- 
> Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
> ablest -- form of life in this section of space,  a critter that can
> be killed but can't be tamed.  --Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
> -
> Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James 
> M Dakin
> 

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

#268358

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

Greg Wooledge (<greg@wooledge.org>) wrote:

> It's not just you.  The use of three "b" names in a row (buster,
> bullseye, bookworm) was in my opinion a poor decision.  I've taken
> to calling the releases by their numbers (10, 11, 12) instead of
> their codenames to avoid confusion wherever possible.
>

I feel ashamed.

I tried to force the time_t 64 transition in unstable because the system
was in a state no longer usable: more than 700 kept back packages and were
unable to install anything new so after manually forcing the transition it
became unusable, with a lot of broken things. So I set up a stable
installation and I wanted Virtualbox for some virtual machines I use. I saw
the fasttrack wiki page, I saw the instructions were for bullseye, and I
assumed changing bullseye with bookworm will work, but I do not know why
bullseye survived in the sources.list even after changing it manually at
least two times. I do not know if KDE's klipper was playing with me pasting
the incorrect data or what, but bullseye survived... I also didn't
notice the error message trying to install virtualbox was referencing
bullseye...

Bullseye and bookworm are totally different words but maybe for no english
native speakers they are easily mistaken.... I don't know.

Now my sources.list is with bookworm, and virtualbox is working just fine,
like it was in unstable.

Thank you and sorry for the inconveniences.

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

#268359

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 10:49:16PM +0100, Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> Greg Wooledge (<greg@wooledge.org>) wrote:
> 
> > It's not just you.  The use of three "b" names in a row (buster,
> > bullseye, bookworm) was in my opinion a poor decision.  I've taken
> > to calling the releases by their numbers (10, 11, 12) instead of
> > their codenames to avoid confusion wherever possible.
> >
> 
> I feel ashamed.
> 

Don't feel ashamed: the time_t 64 transition has meant that unstable
is genuinely unstable. It's OK to have difficulty: the main thing
is that you've got it to work now.

This is _exactly_ the right approach: you've explained your problems,
you asked for advice, you've managed to solve them. I wish other 
people could do the same :)

All the very best, as ever,

Andy

> 
> Now my sources.list is with bookworm, and virtualbox is working just fine,
> like it was in unstable.
> 
> Thank you and sorry for the inconveniences.

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

#268362

On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 3:12 PM Andrew M.A. Cater <amacater@einval.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 10:49:16PM +0100, Miguel A. Vallejo wrote:
> > Greg Wooledge (<greg@wooledge.org>) wrote:
> >
> > > It's not just you.  The use of three "b" names in a row (buster,
> > > bullseye, bookworm) was in my opinion a poor decision.  I've taken
> > > to calling the releases by their numbers (10, 11, 12) instead of
> > > their codenames to avoid confusion wherever possible.
> >
> > I feel ashamed.
>
> Don't feel ashamed: the time_t 64 transition has meant that

May be he _should_ feel ashamed? It could be a cathartic or
constructive experience for him?

May be he __wants__ to feel ashamed? Just postulating possibilities ...

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web