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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #160208 > unrolled thread

Kali, Redux

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

Contents

  Kali, Redux David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> - 2015-11-04 22:00 +0100
    Re: Kali, Redux David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-11-04 23:40 +0100
      Re: Kali, Redux David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> - 2015-11-05 09:30 +0100
        Re: Kali, Redux The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-11-05 14:50 +0100
          Re: Kali, Redux David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> - 2015-11-05 15:30 +0100
            Re: Kali, Redux The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-11-05 15:50 +0100
              Re: Kali, Redux David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> - 2015-11-05 16:10 +0100
                Re: Kali, Redux The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2015-11-05 16:20 +0100
                  Re: Kali, Redux David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> - 2015-11-05 17:00 +0100
            Re: Kali, Redux Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 15:50 +0100
    Re: Kali, Redux "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2015-11-05 09:50 +0100
      Re: Kali, Redux David Baron <d_baron@012.net.il> - 2015-11-05 11:50 +0100

#160208 — Kali, Redux

So, I easily edited the text in /etc/issue to something more to my liking. 
This is just text, no meaning.

Watching a cmake session, I noticed the distribution being called, you guessed 
it: Kali ...

Found another file: ~$ cat /etc/os-release 
PRETTY_NAME="Kali GNU/Linux 2.0 (sana)"
NAME="Kali GNU/Linux"
ID=kali
VERSION="2.0 (sana)"
VERSION_ID="2.0"
ID_LIKE=debian
ANSI_COLOR="1;31"
HOME_URL="http://www.kali.org/"
SUPPORT_URL="http://forums.kali.org/"
BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.kali.org/"

Actually a symlink to /usr/lib/os-release

So where did I get this?
Do I need it?
If  I do, what should it be for Debian Sid?

I had Kali's repos but installed none of their packages.
I recall some script with a text-mode menu for treating some of their security 
packages but I never installed any of them. Script might have touched to two 
files (be there any others??)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#160209

On Wed 04 Nov 2015 at 22:56:42 (+0200), David Baron wrote:
> So, I easily edited the text in /etc/issue to something more to my liking. 
> This is just text, no meaning.
> 
> Watching a cmake session, I noticed the distribution being called, you guessed 
> it: Kali ...
> 
> Found another file: ~$ cat /etc/os-release 
> PRETTY_NAME="Kali GNU/Linux 2.0 (sana)"
> NAME="Kali GNU/Linux"
> ID=kali
> VERSION="2.0 (sana)"
> VERSION_ID="2.0"
> ID_LIKE=debian
> ANSI_COLOR="1;31"
> HOME_URL="http://www.kali.org/"
> SUPPORT_URL="http://forums.kali.org/"
> BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.kali.org/"
> 
> Actually a symlink to /usr/lib/os-release
> 
> So where did I get this?

dpkg -S <filename>   shows that they both belong to the "base-files" package.

> Do I need it?

That depends on the applications you run which might read it.

> If  I do, what should it be for Debian Sid?

Take a look at its "base-files". Whether installing it is useful depends,
I guess, on how much your installation actually looks like sid, and
how much any differences matter.

> I had Kali's repos but installed none of their packages.
> I recall some script with a text-mode menu for treating some of their security 
> packages but I never installed any of them. Script might have touched to two 
> files (be there any others??)

Cheers,
David.

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

#160214

On Wednesday 04 November 2015 16:35:57 David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 04 Nov 2015 at 22:56:42 (+0200), David Baron wrote:
> > So, I easily edited the text in /etc/issue to something more to my liking.
> > This is just text, no meaning.
> > 
> > Watching a cmake session, I noticed the distribution being called, you
> > guessed it: Kali ...
> > 
> > Found another file: ~$ cat /etc/os-release
> > PRETTY_NAME="Kali GNU/Linux 2.0 (sana)"
> > NAME="Kali GNU/Linux"
> > ID=kali
> > VERSION="2.0 (sana)"
> > VERSION_ID="2.0"
> > ID_LIKE=debian
> > ANSI_COLOR="1;31"
> > HOME_URL="http://www.kali.org/"
> > SUPPORT_URL="http://forums.kali.org/"
> > BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.kali.org/"
> > 
> > Actually a symlink to /usr/lib/os-release
> > 
> > So where did I get this?
> 
> dpkg -S <filename>   shows that they both belong to the "base-files"
> package.

This package is no longer on the repos!!

> > Do I need it?
> 
> That depends on the applications you run which might read it.
cmake, for one.

But that is not on the list. Removing base-files will ...
Remv rsync [3.1.1-3]
Remv lib32nss-mdns [0.10-6]
Remv libnss-mdns-i386:i386 [0.10-6]
Remv libnss-mdns:i386 [0.10-6]
Remv libnss-mdns [0.10-6]
Remv base-files [1:2.0] [bsd-mailx:amd64 dpkg-dev:amd64 bash:amd64 ]
Remv foomatic-db-engine [4.0.12-2] [bsd-mailx:amd64 dpkg-dev:amd64 bash:amd64 
]
Remv bash-completion [1:2.1-4.2] [bsd-mailx:amd64 dpkg-dev:amd64 bash:amd64 ]
Remv bash [4.3-14] [bsd-mailx:amd64 dpkg-dev:amd64 ]
Remv bsd-mailx [8.1.2-0.20150408cvs-1] [dpkg-dev:amd64 ]
Remv build-essential [12.1] [dpkg-dev:amd64 ]
Remv dh-make [1.20150601] [dpkg-dev:amd64 ]
Remv debhelper [9.20151005] [dpkg-dev:amd64 dh-strip-nondeterminism:amd64 ]
Remv dh-strip-nondeterminism [0.013-1] [dpkg-dev:amd64 ]
Remv dpkg-dev [1.18.3]

So for a package that is no longer there, quite a problem!
 
> > If  I do, what should it be for Debian Sid?
> 
> Take a look at its "base-files". Whether installing it is useful depends,
> I guess, on how much your installation actually looks like sid, and
> how much any differences matter.

So, now what :-)

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

#160221

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

On 2015-11-05 at 03:22, David Baron wrote:

> On Wednesday 04 November 2015 16:35:57 David Wright wrote:
> 
>> On Wed 04 Nov 2015 at 22:56:42 (+0200), David Baron wrote:
>> 
>>> So, I easily edited the text in /etc/issue to something more to
>>> my liking. This is just text, no meaning.
>>> 
>>> Watching a cmake session, I noticed the distribution being
>>> called, you guessed it: Kali ...
>>> 
>>> Found another file: ~$ cat /etc/os-release
>>> PRETTY_NAME="Kali GNU/Linux 2.0 (sana)"
>>> NAME="Kali GNU/Linux"
>>> ID=kali
>>> VERSION="2.0 (sana)"
>>> VERSION_ID="2.0"
>>> ID_LIKE=debian
>>> ANSI_COLOR="1;31"
>>> HOME_URL="http://www.kali.org/"
>>> SUPPORT_URL="http://forums.kali.org/"
>>> BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.kali.org/"
>>> 
>>> Actually a symlink to /usr/lib/os-release
>>> 
>>> So where did I get this?
>> 
>> dpkg -S <filename>   shows that they both belong to the "base-files"
>> package.
> 
> This package is no longer on the repos!!

Of course it is:

========
$ apt-cache policy base-files
base-files:
  Installed: 9.5
  Candidate: 9.5
  Version table:
 *** 9.5 0
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     8+deb8u2 0
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages
========

I'd be extremely surprised if it weren't, since it's flagged as
"Essential: yes".

What repositories do you have listed in /etc/apt/sources.list?

I really suspect you're not actually running Debian as such, but some
derivative (presumably named "Kali") with which I at least am not
directly familiar, and your problems are coming from the changes
involved in their repositories.

-- 
   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]

#160224

On Thursday 05 November 2015 08:47:48 The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-11-05 at 03:22, David Baron wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 November 2015 16:35:57 David Wright wrote:
> >> On Wed 04 Nov 2015 at 22:56:42 (+0200), David Baron wrote:
> >>> So, I easily edited the text in /etc/issue to something more to
> >>> my liking. This is just text, no meaning.
> >>> 
> >>> Watching a cmake session, I noticed the distribution being
> >>> called, you guessed it: Kali ...
> >>> 
> >>> Found another file: ~$ cat /etc/os-release
> >>> PRETTY_NAME="Kali GNU/Linux 2.0 (sana)"
> >>> NAME="Kali GNU/Linux"
> >>> ID=kali
> >>> VERSION="2.0 (sana)"
> >>> VERSION_ID="2.0"
> >>> ID_LIKE=debian
> >>> ANSI_COLOR="1;31"
> >>> HOME_URL="http://www.kali.org/"
> >>> SUPPORT_URL="http://forums.kali.org/"
> >>> BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.kali.org/"
> >>> 
> >>> Actually a symlink to /usr/lib/os-release
> >>> 
> >>> So where did I get this?
> >> 
> >> dpkg -S <filename>   shows that they both belong to the "base-files"
> >> package.
> > 
> > This package is no longer on the repos!!
> 
> Of course it is:
> 
> ========
> $ apt-cache policy base-files
> base-files:
>   Installed: 9.5
>   Candidate: 9.5
>   Version table:
>  *** 9.5 0
>         500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>      8+deb8u2 0
>         500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages
> ========
> 
> I'd be extremely surprised if it weren't, since it's flagged as
> "Essential: yes".
> 
> What repositories do you have listed in /etc/apt/sources.list?
> 
> I really suspect you're not actually running Debian as such, but some
> derivative (presumably named "Kali") with which I at least am not
> directly familiar, and your problems are coming from the changes
> involved in their repositories.

Here is my sources.list
~$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list
# basic
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing main contrib non-free 
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable main contrib non-free 
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ experimental main contrib non-free 

#Virtualbox from Oracle
# deb http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian/ squeeze contrib non-
free 
deb http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian/ wheezy contrib 

#Kde pre-releases?
# deb http://qt-kde.debian.net/debian/ unstable main 
# deb http://qt-kde.debian.net/debian/ experimental main 
# deb http://qt-kde.debian.net/debian/ experimental-snapshots main 
# deb http://packages.siduction.org/kdenext/ experimental-snapshots main 

#flight simulator launcher
# deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/xquiet/ppa/ubuntu/ precise main 

#awv.lvw plugins
# deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/blablack/music-prod/ubuntu/ quantal main 
# deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/blablack/music-prod/ubuntu/ quantal main 

# Kali linux repositories | Added by Katoolin
# deb http://http.kali.org/kali/ sana contrib non-free main  
# deb http://security.kali.org/kali-security/ sana/updates non-free contrib 
main  
# deb http://repo.kali.org/kali/ kali-bleeding-edge main 

I had those kali repos but never installed any of it, but that Katoolin script 
might have touched the text files.

Attempt to apt-get --reinstall install base-files will produce error "cannot 
be downloaded." In Synaptic, the Debian symbol does not appear with the 
package. Maybe it is only on stable?

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

#160226

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

On 2015-11-05 at 09:41, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Thursday 05 November 2015 14:26:07 David Baron wrote:
> 
>> Attempt to apt-get --reinstall install base-files will produce
>> error "cannot be downloaded." In Synaptic, the Debian symbol does
>> not appear with the package. Maybe it is only on stable?
> 
> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=base-files

Perhaps more usefully:

What does 'apt-cache policy base-files' say on your machine? Exact
output, please; don't just give part of the response, copy-and-paste the
entire thing, the way I did in my previous mail.

Similarly, what is the exact output you get from 'apt-get install
--reinstall base-files'?

Also, just to double-check: you have run 'apt-get update' recently,
correct?

-- 
   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]

#160228

On Thursday 05 November 2015 09:47:12 The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-11-05 at 09:41, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 November 2015 14:26:07 David Baron wrote:
> >> Attempt to apt-get --reinstall install base-files will produce
> >> error "cannot be downloaded." In Synaptic, the Debian symbol does
> >> not appear with the package. Maybe it is only on stable?
> > 
> > https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=base-files
> 
> Perhaps more usefully:
> 
> What does 'apt-cache policy base-files' say on your machine? Exact
> output, please; don't just give part of the response, copy-and-paste the
> entire thing, the way I did in my previous mail.
> 
~$ apt-cache policy base-files
base-files:
  Installed: 1:2.0
  Candidate: 1:2.0
  Version table:
 *** 1:2.0 0
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     9.5 0
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
        500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable/main amd64 Packages

> Similarly, what is the exact output you get from 'apt-get install
> --reinstall base-files'?
~$ sudo apt-get --reinstall install base-files
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
Reinstallation of base-files is not possible, it cannot be downloaded.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 21 not upgraded.

> Also, just to double-check: you have run 'apt-get update' recently,
> correct?
Done at least daily, cron job.

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

#160230

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

On 2015-11-05 at 09:59, David Baron wrote:

> On Thursday 05 November 2015 09:47:12 The Wanderer wrote:
> 
>> On 2015-11-05 at 09:41, Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thursday 05 November 2015 14:26:07 David Baron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Attempt to apt-get --reinstall install base-files will produce
>>>> error "cannot be downloaded." In Synaptic, the Debian symbol
>>>> does not appear with the package. Maybe it is only on stable?
>>> 
>>> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=base-files
>> 
>> Perhaps more usefully:
>> 
>> What does 'apt-cache policy base-files' say on your machine? Exact
>> output, please; don't just give part of the response,
>> copy-and-paste the entire thing, the way I did in my previous mail.
> 
> ~$ apt-cache policy base-files
> base-files:
>   Installed: 1:2.0
>   Candidate: 1:2.0
>   Version table:
>  *** 1:2.0 0
>         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>      9.5 0
>         500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
>         500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable/main amd64 Packages

That sheds some light on things.

In your earlier sources.list, the lines for the Kali repos were
commented out. That means that any package versions which were pulled
only from those repos will show as being available only locally, with no
repo source for re-download.

I suspect that when the Kali repos were enabled, something resulted in
your upgrading base-files, and since the Kali repos had a version number
with an epoch (the '1:' at the beginning of the version number) their
version trumped the one from the official repos.

_IF_ you want to revert base-files to the official Debian version,
abandoning the Kali variant, you should be able to do it with the
following command:

apt-get install base-files=9.5


Note that if you do that, you probably won't be able to get back to the
current state, unless either A: you have the appropriate .deb file
cached (e.g. in /var/cache/apt/archives) or B: you un-comment the Kali
repos in sources.list and apt-get update again.

However, since you presumably (based on your having started this thread
in the first place) don't want the Kali packages anyway, you probably
won't consider this a bad thing.

-- 
   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]

#160233

On Thursday 05 November 2015 10:13:34 The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2015-11-05 at 09:59, David Baron wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 November 2015 09:47:12 The Wanderer wrote:
> >> On 2015-11-05 at 09:41, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 05 November 2015 14:26:07 David Baron wrote:
> >>>> Attempt to apt-get --reinstall install base-files will produce
> >>>> error "cannot be downloaded." In Synaptic, the Debian symbol
> >>>> does not appear with the package. Maybe it is only on stable?
> >>> 
> >>> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=base-files
> >> 
> >> Perhaps more usefully:
> >> 
> >> What does 'apt-cache policy base-files' say on your machine? Exact
> >> output, please; don't just give part of the response,
> >> copy-and-paste the entire thing, the way I did in my previous mail.
> > 
> > ~$ apt-cache policy base-files
> > 
> > base-files:
> >   Installed: 1:2.0
> >   Candidate: 1:2.0
> >  
> >   Version table:
> >  *** 1:2.0 0
> >  
> >         100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> >      
> >      9.5 0
> >      
> >         500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ testing/main amd64 Packages
> >         500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ unstable/main amd64 Packages
> 
> That sheds some light on things.
> 
> In your earlier sources.list, the lines for the Kali repos were
> commented out. That means that any package versions which were pulled
> only from those repos will show as being available only locally, with no
> repo source for re-download.
> 
> I suspect that when the Kali repos were enabled, something resulted in
> your upgrading base-files, and since the Kali repos had a version number
> with an epoch (the '1:' at the beginning of the version number) their
> version trumped the one from the official repos.
> 
> _IF_ you want to revert base-files to the official Debian version,
> abandoning the Kali variant, you should be able to do it with the
> following command:
> 
> apt-get install base-files=9.5
> 
> 
> Note that if you do that, you probably won't be able to get back to the
> current state, unless either A: you have the appropriate .deb file
> cached (e.g. in /var/cache/apt/archives) or B: you un-comment the Kali
> repos in sources.list and apt-get update again.
> 
> However, since you presumably (based on your having started this thread
> in the first place) don't want the Kali packages anyway, you probably
> won't consider this a bad thing.

Did the job! Called it a "downgrade."

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

#160227

On Thursday 05 November 2015 14:26:07 David Baron wrote:
[snip]
> Attempt to apt-get --reinstall install base-files will produce error
> "cannot be downloaded." In Synaptic, the Debian symbol does not appear with
> the package. Maybe it is only on stable?

https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=base-files

Lisi

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

#160215

Hi,

David Baron wrote:
> what should it be for Debian Sid?

On my Sid VM i get:

  $ cat /etc/os-release 
  PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux stretch/sid"
  NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
  ID=debian
  HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/"
  SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support/"
  BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/"

  $ ls -l /etc/os-release
  lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Aug 18 12:06 /etc/os-release -> ../usr/lib/os-release


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

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

#160219

On Thursday 05 November 2015 09:41:40 Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> David Baron wrote:
> > what should it be for Debian Sid?
> 
> On my Sid VM i get:
> 
>   $ cat /etc/os-release
>   PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux stretch/sid"
>   NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
>   ID=debian
>   HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/"
>   SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support/"
>   BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/"
> 
>   $ ls -l /etc/os-release
>   lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Aug 18 12:06 /etc/os-release ->
> ../usr/lib/os-release

Hand edited mine to this.
Dependencies on now non-existent package -- strange!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web