Bug#619521: Fwd: upgrade-reports: "dist-upgrade" -using DVDs cannot be completed
By inspecting the latest entries to "bug 619521", I discovered that I
need to add "cc: 619521@bugs.debian.org" to helpful advice that is
posted to me direct.
Belatedly, here is the text of my reply to "Message 48":
PS: If the formatting of this message is butchered, this is either
the work of Gmail or it is due to a tweakable GMail setting that I
have yet to discover.
Felix Karpfen
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Felix Karpfen <felix.karpfen@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: upgrade-reports: "dist-upgrade" -using DVDs cannot be completed
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 04:40 +1100, Felix Karpfen wrote:
>> Package: upgrade-reports
>> Severity: critical
>> Justification: causes serious data loss
>
> You have not explained this claim.
>>
>> When the dist-upgrade started the sym-link "/cdrom -> /dev/hdc" was correct.
>
> Do you mean that /dev/hdc was mounted on /cdrom?
>
I fear that I am totally confused.
On Debian Lenny my CD-ROM drive is identified as /dev/hdc. When
mounted, the mount-point is /media/cdrom0. The entry, "/cdrom" - which
the Debian installer recognises - points (ultimately) to
/media/cdrom0.
SNIP
> This cannot happen during an upgrade, unless you also reboot >into a new kernel version. Did you do that?
>
> Is the linux-base package installed?
The answer to both questions is "yes".
The "dist-upgrade" - as described in the Debian Squeeze release notes
- is a 2-stage process.
Stage 1:
Run "apt-get update", "apt-get upgrade", "apt-get install new kernel
image", "apt-get install udev" and reboot.
This stage worked perfectly.
Stage 2:
Run "apt-get dist-upgrade"
This stage started OK, asked for the first DVD to be mounted and did
all that it could with the data on the first DVD. It then halted and
asked to insert the second DVD.
This could not be done.
> [...]
>
> If /cdrom is indeed a symlink to /dev/hdc, then you should remove >the symlink and create an empty directory in its place. If it is a
> mountpoint and /etc/fstab says that the non-existent /dev/hdc
> should be mounted there, you should fix /etc/fstab.
I fear that this use of the terms is beyond my comprehension.
However, the copy of info that I sent to other respondents (see
below), spells out my understanding of the problem.
SNIP
>
>> Attached is the script of the crashed "dist-upgrade"
> I see no crash, only what looks like failure to mount the right disc.
Another woeful louse-up on my part!
The script was not the one that I thought that I had sent.
It was a script that was generated by a subsequent try - after I had
done what you suggested above and replaced (in /etc/fstab) the entry
/dev/hdc by the entry /dev/sr0.
> Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it
> worse.
Spot on!
Bull's eye!
Here is a copy of info that may be relevant:
Copy of reply sent to an email from Bill Alombert
======================================
After changing the entry (in /etc/fstab) to read (as recommended in
the release notes):
/dev/hdc /cdrom auto ro,defaults,noauto 0 0
and rechecking everything, I got the following results:
1. #mount /cdrom worked.
2.
# ls -alF /cdrom
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 11 Aug 21 2009 /cdrom -> media/cdrom/
i.e. the changed entry in /etc/fstab had no effect
3.
# mount
/dev/hdb7 on / type xfs (rw)
tmpfs on /lib/init/rw type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,mode=0755)
proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev)
udev on /dev type tmpfs (rw,mode=0755)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,noexec,nosuid,gid=5,mode=620)
none on /proc/bus/usb type usbfs (rw)
**/dev/hdc on /media/cdrom0 type iso9660 (ro)**
i.e. the changed entry in "/etc/fstab" still mounted my DVD (/media/cdrom0)
and
4. After umount /cdrom
# ls -lt /cdrom
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Mar 26 03:29 /cdrom -> /media/cdrom
The /cdrom link pointed to /media/cdrom - as flagged in your advice
======
End of copy.
In case this is not clear, the Release Notes suggest doing items 1.
and 2. before starting on the upgrade. Hence I could easily rerun
them on my (still fully operational) Lenny.
The output generated by 2. does not match the output expected by the
Release Notes.
I hope this clarifies something.
Thank you for taking an interest in my problem.
Felix
--
Felix Karpfen
Reply to: