[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#823465: dpkg: Won't run at all on i586 Pentium MMX due to illegal instruction



On Sun, 8 May 2016 00:51:57 +0200
Pierre Ynard <linkfanel@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> > My recommendation would be going to jessie[1], it has whole four
> > years of support left. Anything you need from unstable can be
> > backported.  
> 
> Hopefully the downgrade path would be workable.

Backports can help with that - those are built in stable, so will have
the same compiler options as stable.

Start by commenting out all sources pointing at unstable, add sources
for jessie and jessie-backports and investigate which packages are
installed at a higher version without backports. If some are missing
and you think you need those versions, you can always do a local
backport by rebuilding in jessie and ask on the backports list to see
if someone else needs the same backport. (Leave one source pointing at
deb-src: for testing, source only for backport builds.)
 
> > What kind of solution would you propose? We can't exactly add
> > preinst guards to every single package. The only package that's
> > depended on by (almost) all compiled code is libc6, but because of
> > symbols handling the dependency is usually libc6 (>= 2.15) or such
> > rather than (>= 2.22-7).  
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines of adding some central check in
> dpkg maybe, that detects the lack of i686 support and errors out on
> new, incompatible packages. Discriminating packages could be as
> simple as a by-passable check on the build/release date. But then
> this is a bit late to implement in advance.

It's not about simply blocking installs - the package to be installed is
being upgraded for a reason, so blocking the install just blocks the
bug fix or blocks upgrades of other dependent packages, until the
binary is rebuilt in stable. That's why the advice is to move this box
to stable - ask for backports of any packages which need updates from
testing.

You have four years to decide whether to replace this hardware or
continue running jessie without support.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgp6sDvd6iL7S.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: