Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #201982 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-02 06:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-11-03 16:50 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 53 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-11-02 06:50 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-03 01:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-11-03 04:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-03 10:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-11-03 12:50 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-03 14:40 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-03 16:40 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-03 19:50 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-03 21:30 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-04 00:30 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-04 00:40 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-04 01:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> - 2018-11-04 11:50 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-04 14:50 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-11-04 23:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-05 22:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-11-03 20:30 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-03 21:40 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-04 01:30 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-11-04 03:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-04 10:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-04 15:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-04 16:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-11-04 16:50 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-04 17:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-04 19:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-11-05 17:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-05 18:30 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-05 21:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-11-05 22:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-05 23:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-11-06 10:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror mick crane <mick.crane@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 10:50 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-11-06 16:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-11-06 18:30 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-06 19:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-11-06 05:30 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-06 11:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-11-06 15:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-06 17:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-05 22:30 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-06 00:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2018-11-06 02:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-06 20:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2018-11-07 20:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-07 21:40 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-11-04 03:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-04 15:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-11-03 21:50 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2018-11-04 03:10 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2018-11-04 13:20 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-03 16:00 +0100
Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2018-11-03 16:50 +0100
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-02 06:50 +0100 |
| Subject | debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wPAvf-1qi-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
debian-users:
I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via:
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/
Here is the local file produced by Jidgo:
2018-11-01 21:47:40 dpchrist@vstretch ~/iso/debian/9.5.0/amd64
$ ll debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso
-rw-r--r--+ 1 dpchrist dpchrist 671088640 2018/08/12 18:34:13
debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso
Here is the checksum of the local file:
2018-11-01 21:48:17 dpchrist@vstretch ~/iso/debian/9.5.0/amd64
$ sha256sum debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso
e3934b8dd67f31622f8d2bdb72e91d458c05b05d59b069695274c5cb617e821c
debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso
The checksum of the file matches the checksum from the Debian site:
2018-11-01 21:51:01 dpchrist@vstretch ~/iso/debian/9.5.0/amd64
$ wget -O -
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/SHA256SUMS |
grep e3934b8dd67f31622f8d2bdb72e91d458c05b05d59b069695274c5cb617e821c
--2018-11-01 21:51:11--
https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/SHA256SUMS
Resolving cdimage.debian.org (cdimage.debian.org)... 194.71.11.173,
194.71.11.165, 2001:6b0:19::173, ...
Connecting to cdimage.debian.org
(cdimage.debian.org)|194.71.11.173|:443... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 912
Saving to: 'STDOUT'
- 0%[ ] 0 --.-KB/s
e3934b8dd67f31622f8d2bdb72e91d458c05b05d59b069695274c5cb617e821c
debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso
- 100%[===================>] 912 --.-KB/s in
0s
2018-11-01 21:51:12 (6.53 MB/s) - written to stdout [912/912]
I burned the ISO to a USB flash drive early today:
2018-11-01 20:12:28 root@po ~
# time dd bs=1M
if=/home/dpchrist/iso/debian/9.5.0/amd64/debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso
of=/dev/disk/by-id/usb-ADATA_USB_Flash_Drive_1392303332110024-0\:0
640+0 records in
640+0 records out
671088640 bytes (671 MB, 640 MiB) copied, 172.411 s, 3.9 MB/s
real 2m52.419s
user 0m0.004s
sys 0m0.660s
The checksum on the USB flash drive is correct:
2018-11-01 20:17:09 root@po ~
# time dd bs=1M count=640
if=/dev/disk/by-id/usb-ADATA_USB_Flash_Drive_1392303332110024-0\:0 |
sha256sum
640+0 records in
640+0 records out
671088640 bytes (671 MB, 640 MiB) copied, 44.265 s, 15.2 MB/s
e3934b8dd67f31622f8d2bdb72e91d458c05b05d59b069695274c5cb617e821c -
real 0m44.268s
user 0m8.500s
sys 0m1.176s
When I attempt to install Debian using the above flash drive:
Boot Debian 9.5 amd64 Xfce USB flash drive:
Debian GNU/Linux installer boot menu
Install
Language C
Continent or region North America
Country, territory or area United States
Keymap to use American English
Hostname dj028yh2
Domain name tracy.holgerdanske.com
Root password ********
Re-enter password to verify ********
Full name for the new user debian
Username for your account debian
Password ********
Re-enter password to verify ********
Select your time zone Pacific
Partitioning method manual
Encrypted volume (sde2_crypt) - 1.0 GB Linux device-mapper (crypt)
#1 1.0 GB f swap swap
Encrypted volume (sde3_crypt) - 10.0 GB Linux device-mapper (crypt)
#1 10.0 GB f btrfs /
SCSI5 (0,0,0) (sde) - 16.0 GB ATA SAMSUNG SSD UM41
#1 primary 999.3 MB B F btrfs /boot
#2 primary 1.0 GB k crypto (sde2_crypt)
#3 primary 10.0 GB k crypto (sde3_crypt)
pri/log 4.0 GB FREE SPACE
Use a network mirror No
Participate in the package usage survey
No
Choose software to install Debian desktop environment
... Xfce
standard system utilities
It fails with a pop-up dialog:
[!] Select and install software
Installation step failed
An installation step failed. You can try to run the failing item again
from the menu, or
skip it and choose something else. The failing step is: Select and
install software
Note that I did not select a mirror.
Apparently, debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso is missing the packages
required for a default installation (?).
If I go back and use a network mirror (my local Approx server), I can
finish the install successfully:
Select Continue -> Configure the package manager:
Use a network mirror Yes
Protocol for file downloads http
Debian archive mirror country enter information manually
Debian archive mirror hostname
192.168.5.25:9999
Debian archive mirror directory
/debian/
HTTP proxy information <blank>
Use non-free software No
Use contrib software No
Enable source repositories in APT
Yes
Services to use security updates
release updates
Participate in the package usage survey
No
Choose software to install Debian desktop environment
... Xfce
standard system utilities
Install the GRUB boot loader to the master boot record
Yes
Device for boot loader installation
/dev/sde
Installation complete Continue
Can anyone confirm this bug?
David
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 01:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wPRPr-3Gx-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #201982 |
dpchrist@holgerdanske.com wrote: >debian-users: > >I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via: > >https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/ <snip> - image sounds ok. <snip> - basic d-i setup >It fails with a pop-up dialog: > > [!] Select and install software > Installation step failed > An installation step failed. You can try to run the failing item again >from the menu, or > skip it and choose something else. The failing step is: Select and >install software > >Note that I did not select a mirror. > >Apparently, debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso is missing the packages >required for a default installation (?). > >If I go back and use a network mirror (my local Approx server), I can >finish the install successfully: > >Can anyone confirm this bug? Yes. I've just tested it and I can see the same problem. By switching to the syslog (VT4) I can see that there problem is with the mutt package: --- Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: The following packages have unmet dependencies: Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: mutt : Depends: libgpgme11 (>= 1.2.0) but it is not installable Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: Depends: libnotmuch4 (>= 0.21~rc1) but it is not installable Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: E: in-target: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. --- There is a bug here, and I think it's possibly in tasksel. Mutt is not on the installation CD, and neither are its dependencies libgpgme11 and libnotmuch4. *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority: standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD --> problem. That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a larger installation CD. Sorry... :-/ -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 04:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wPUtX-5hf-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202001 |
On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > dpchrist@holgerdanske.com wrote: >> debian-users: >> >> I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via: >> >> https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/jigdo-cd/ > > <snip> - image sounds ok. > > <snip> - basic d-i setup > >> It fails with a pop-up dialog: >> >> [!] Select and install software >> Installation step failed >> An installation step failed. You can try to run the failing item again >>from the menu, or >> skip it and choose something else. The failing step is: Select and >> install software >> >> Note that I did not select a mirror. >> >> Apparently, debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso is missing the packages >> required for a default installation (?). >> >> If I go back and use a network mirror (my local Approx server), I can >> finish the install successfully: >> >> Can anyone confirm this bug? > > Yes. I've just tested it and I can see the same problem. By switching > to the syslog (VT4) I can see that there problem is with the mutt > package: > > --- > Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: The following packages have unmet dependencies: > Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: mutt : Depends: libgpgme11 (>= 1.2.0) but it is not installable > Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: Depends: libnotmuch4 (>= 0.21~rc1) but it is not installable > Nov 2 18:14:59 in-target: E: in-target: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > --- > > There is a bug here, and I think it's possibly in tasksel. Mutt is not > on the installation CD, and neither are its dependencies libgpgme11 > and libnotmuch4. > > *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org > to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get > update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority: > standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the > dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD --> > problem. > > That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security > updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a > larger installation CD. Sorry... :-/ Thank you for confirming the defect, and thank you for the detailed analysis. My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that package. Which package do I file a bug report against? David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 10:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQ06m-oR-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202006 |
Le 03/11/2018 à 04:01, David Christensen a écrit : > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> There is a bug here, and I think it's possibly in tasksel. Mutt is not >> on the installation CD, and neither are its dependencies libgpgme11 >> and libnotmuch4. >> >> *However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org >> to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get >> update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority: >> standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the >> dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD --> >> problem. (...) > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package > to be a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If > 'apt-get update' finds that a security update package is available and > the d-i wants to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be > able to download that package. Which package do I file a bug report > against? IMO, debian-installer. We cannot expect tasksel to check that all required dependencies for any selected package are available. The installer should not automatically enable the security archive without adding a normal mirror too in order to have consistent sources, even when installing from a large DVD or BD image. Also, if you install from an old image, adding only the security archive may miss security updates which have been moved to the main archive. This gives a false sense of security.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 12:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQ2Bb-1Jl-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202015 |
On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:04:00AM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >Also, if you install >from an old image, adding only the security archive may miss security >updates which have been moved to the main archive. This gives a false >sense of security. I don't think anything is actually removed from security.d.o on point releases, to avoid exactly that problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 14:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQ4jD-2MA-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202018 |
Le 03/11/2018 à 12:47, Michael Stone a écrit : > On Sat, Nov 03, 2018 at 10:04:00AM +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> Also, if you install from an old image, adding only the security >> archive may miss security updates which have been moved to the main >> archive. This gives a false sense of security. > > I don't think anything is actually removed from security.d.o on point > releases, to avoid exactly that problem. After checking a few old security updates, it seems that you are right - and I was wrong. I wonder where I got this idea from...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 16:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQ6bL-3Xl-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202006 |
On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: [Snip] > > That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security > > updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a > > larger installation CD. Sorry... :-/ > > Thank you for confirming the defect, and thank you for the detailed > analysis. > > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. > I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a > mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps > this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates > KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more > clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain > explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be > a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get > update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants > to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that > package. Which package do I file a bug report against? There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no business attempting to install it. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 19:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQ99D-5FF-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202025 |
Le 03/11/2018 à 16:35, Brian a écrit : > > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no > business attempting to install it. It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 (...) Priority: standard Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1 (...) Priority: optional The Debian changelog does not mention this change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 21:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQaIp-6FU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202042 |
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 03/11/2018 à 16:35, Brian a écrit : > > > > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is > > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no > > business attempting to install it. > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. > > Package: mutt > Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 > (...) > Priority: standard > > Package: mutt > Version: 1.7.2-1 > (...) > Priority: optional > > The Debian changelog does not mention this change. I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package maintainer matter. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 00:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQdwC-8l4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202050 |
Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit : > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> >> It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. >> >> Package: mutt >> Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 >> (...) >> Priority: standard >> >> Package: mutt >> Version: 1.7.2-1 >> (...) >> Priority: optional >> >> The Debian changelog does not mention this change. Checking in mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_i386.deb, the priority has not changed. > I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package > maintainer matter. Why then did the priority override change for a stable security update ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 00:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQdGi-8o3-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202065 |
On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 00:20:27 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit : > > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > > > > > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. > > > > > > Package: mutt > > > Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 > > > (...) > > > Priority: standard > > > > > > Package: mutt > > > Version: 1.7.2-1 > > > (...) > > > Priority: optional > > > > > > The Debian changelog does not mention this change. > > Checking in mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_i386.deb, the priority has not changed. > > > I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package > > maintainer matter. > > Why then did the priority override change for a stable security update ? Pass. wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 01:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQej0-oO-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202066 |
Brian wrote: >On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 00:20:27 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > >> Le 03/11/2018 à 21:24, Brian a écrit : >> > On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 19:40:14 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: >> > > >> > > It appears that the latest update gave mutt "standard" priority back. >> > > >> > > Package: mutt >> > > Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 >> > > (...) >> > > Priority: standard >> > > >> > > Package: mutt >> > > Version: 1.7.2-1 >> > > (...) >> > > Priority: optional >> > > >> > > The Debian changelog does not mention this change. >> >> Checking in mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_i386.deb, the priority has not changed. >> >> > I believe the changelog would not mention overrides. It is not a package >> > maintainer matter. >> >> Why then did the priority override change for a stable security update ? > >Pass. > >wget http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.stretch.main.gz Right. But if you compare the metdata for mutt in the relevant Packages files, there is a mismatch. From current stable: Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1 Installed-Size: 6104 Maintainer: Mutt maintainers <pkg-mutt-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org> Architecture: amd64 ... Priority: optional Filename: pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1_amd64.deb Size: 1562454 MD5sum: ba99d07da2382c1861533e4a55ebe6f8 SHA256: b4032390b6e0347863558015f2c5dfff19af61145d745351c30be66932d2a9c2 And from stable-security: Package: mutt Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1 Installed-Size: 6108 Maintainer: Mutt maintainers <pkg-mutt-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org> Architecture: amd64 ... Priority: standard Filename: pool/updates/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_amd64.deb Size: 1564182 MD5sum: aa2aa9266ed488bc57e486497dcde2b0 SHA1: 4dac8ed3ec8dd50de65ff3cb07eef1963d3e96c0 SHA256: 749a070599b56c923c514cd7b9fab6f94b01c662a9c5c93182366f81990f4d87 which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at directly to check... I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 11:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQo8F-6a6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202068 |
On 2018-11-04 00:19 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Right. But if you compare the metdata for mutt in the relevant
> Packages files, there is a mismatch. From current stable:
>
> Package: mutt
> Version: 1.7.2-1
> Installed-Size: 6104
> Maintainer: Mutt maintainers <pkg-mutt-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Architecture: amd64
> ...
> Priority: optional
> Filename: pool/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1_amd64.deb
> Size: 1562454
> MD5sum: ba99d07da2382c1861533e4a55ebe6f8
> SHA256: b4032390b6e0347863558015f2c5dfff19af61145d745351c30be66932d2a9c2
>
>
> And from stable-security:
>
> Package: mutt
> Version: 1.7.2-1+deb9u1
> Installed-Size: 6108
> Maintainer: Mutt maintainers <pkg-mutt-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> Architecture: amd64
> ...
> Priority: standard
> Filename: pool/updates/main/m/mutt/mutt_1.7.2-1+deb9u1_amd64.deb
> Size: 1564182
> MD5sum: aa2aa9266ed488bc57e486497dcde2b0
> SHA1: 4dac8ed3ec8dd50de65ff3cb07eef1963d3e96c0
> SHA256: 749a070599b56c923c514cd7b9fab6f94b01c662a9c5c93182366f81990f4d87
>
> which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security
> archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at
> directly to check...
Is there even an override file on security.debian.org, or uses it
the priority from the packages?
> I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on...
That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668.
Cheers,
Sven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 14:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQqWS-7OZ-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202087 |
Sven wrote: >On 2018-11-04 00:19 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security >> archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at >> directly to check... > >Is there even an override file on security.debian.org, or uses it >the priority from the packages? > >> I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on... > >That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668. Yup. That's just been confirmed in #debian-ftp: 2018-11-04 13:41 GMT < waldi> found it. only new overrides are synced, not existing updated There *are* overrides in place, they're just incorrect wrt those for the main archive. David: thanks for your report, it's been very helpful in pointing out this subtle (and well-buried!) problem. Hopefully we'll see a fix shortly. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 23:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQyUp-5n1-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202095 |
On 11/4/18 5:45 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Sven wrote: >> On 2018-11-04 00:19 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>> >>> which suggests there may be a problem with overrides in the security >>> archive. The overrides file for security isn't available to look at >>> directly to check... >> >> Is there even an override file on security.debian.org, or uses it >> the priority from the packages? >> >>> I'll talk to the ftp team and see what's going on... >> >> That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668. > > Yup. That's just been confirmed in #debian-ftp: > > 2018-11-04 13:41 GMT < waldi> found it. only new overrides are synced, not existing updated > > There *are* overrides in place, they're just incorrect wrt those for > the main archive. > > David: thanks for your report, it's been very helpful in pointing out > this subtle (and well-buried!) problem. Hopefully we'll see a fix > shortly. Thank you, and everyone involved, for pursuing it. :-) (I will assume that no bug report needs to be filed at this point.) David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 22:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQU8y-173-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202114 |
dpchrist@holgerdanske.com wrote: >On 11/4/18 5:45 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >>> >>> That is https://bugs.debian.org/867668. >> >> Yup. That's just been confirmed in #debian-ftp: >> >> 2018-11-04 13:41 GMT < waldi> found it. only new overrides are synced, not existing updated >> >> There *are* overrides in place, they're just incorrect wrt those for >> the main archive. >> >> David: thanks for your report, it's been very helpful in pointing out >> this subtle (and well-buried!) problem. Hopefully we'll see a fix >> shortly. > >Thank you, and everyone involved, for pursuing it. :-) > >(I will assume that no bug report needs to be filed at this point.) Correct - it's already being tracked in #867668. Ansgar has just fixed up the overrides for mutt in stable-security by hand for now, with a proper permanent fix on the way. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 20:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQ9Mm-686-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202025 |
On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote: > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > >> On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. >> I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a >> mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps >> this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates >> KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more >> clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain >> explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? > > You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN. This is not the same as approval to connect to the Internet. So, I file a bug report against d-i? >> I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be >> a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get >> update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants >> to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that >> package. Which package do I file a bug report against? > > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no > business attempting to install it. So, I file a bug report against d-i? David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-03 21:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQaS6-6IV-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202047 |
On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote: > > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: > > > > > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. > > > I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a > > > mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps > > > this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates > > > KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more > > > clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain > > > explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? > > > > You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. > > I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN. This is not the same > as approval to connect to the Internet. At what point in the installation did you do this? A network is a network. > So, I file a bug report against d-i? For what? Connecting to other machines? > > > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be > > > a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get > > > update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants > > > to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that > > > package. Which package do I file a bug report against? > > > > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is > > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no > > business attempting to install it. > > So, I file a bug report against d-i? Not in my opinion. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 01:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQesF-rS-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202054 |
Brian wrote: >On Sat 03 Nov 2018 at 12:29:15 -0700, David Christensen wrote: >> On 11/3/18 8:35 AM, Brian wrote: >> > On Fri 02 Nov 2018 at 20:01:59 -0700, David Christensen wrote: >> > >> > > On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> > >> > > My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. >> > > I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a >> > > mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps >> > > this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates >> > > KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more >> > > clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain >> > > explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against? >> > >> > You gave it explicit approval when you configured the network. >> >> I gave the d-i explicit approval to connect to my LAN. This is not the same >> as approval to connect to the Internet. > >At what point in the installation did you do this? A network is a network. And it's clearly not obvious to all users that security.d.o will be automatically added just because the new installation can see a network. It makes sense from a security POV, but... >> So, I file a bug report against d-i? > >For what? Connecting to other machines? > >> > > I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be >> > > a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get >> > > update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants >> > > to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that >> > > package. Which package do I file a bug report against? >> > >> > There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is >> > not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no >> > business attempting to install it. >> >> So, I file a bug report against d-i? > >Not in my opinion. Not against d-i, no. As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 03:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror |
| Message-ID | <wQg1r-1qo-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #202069 |
On 11/3/18 5:23 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote: > And it's clearly not obvious to all users that security.d.o will be > automatically added just because the new installation can see a > network. It makes sense from a security POV, but... +1 >>>>> I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be >>>>> a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get >>>>> update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants >>>>> to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that >>>>> package. Which package do I file a bug report against? >>>> >>>> There is no defect in the security package distribution chain. mutt is >>>> not part of the Xfce or standard utilities tasks. The installer had no >>>> business attempting to install it. >>> >>> So, I file a bug report against d-i? >> >> Not in my opinion. > > Not against d-i, no. As I just wrote elsewhere, it looks like a bug in > the security.d.o infrastructure. I'm chasing that now. Thank you. David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web