Re: debian-user-digest Digest V2002 #711
On Wednesday 31 July 2002 10:44 pm,
debian-user-digest-request@lists.debian.org wrote:
> debian-user-digest Digest Volume 2002 : Issue 711
>
> Today's Topics:
> Drop in kernel replacement? [ Robert Ian Smit
> <robian@wanadoo.nl> ] Re: Holiday arrangements [ Ron Johnson
> <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> ] Re: Network unreachable just after P [ Robert
> Ian Smit <robian@wanadoo.nl> ] Surely there was a better fix? [ Phil
> Edwards <phil@jaj.com> ] Re: Repartitioning [ "Karl E.
> Jorgensen" <karl@jorgensen ] Re: automatic security updates [ Ron
> Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> ] Re: Drop in kernel replacement? [
> Jamin W.Collins <jcollins@asgardsre ] Re: automatic security updates
> [ Alan Shutko <ats@acm.org> ] Re: Full-screen editor in /bin [ csj
> <csj@mindgate.net> ] Re: automatic security updates [ Ron Johnson
> <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> ] Re: Full-screen editor in /bin [ csj
> <csj@mindgate.net> ] Re: Full-screen editor in /bin [ Ron Johnson
> <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> ] apt-get foolishness [ "Michael
> P. Soulier" <msoulier@stor ] Re: Full-screen editor in /bin [
> Richard Cobbe <cobbe@airmail.net> ]
> I have seen quite a few messages on this list concerning kernel
> upgrades. Since I have been using the bf2.4 kernel since
> installation time, I tried to install an optimized i686 kernel.
>
> I was hoping that after apt-get, lilo + initrd and reboot everything
> would be fine.
>
> It wasn't. I have yet to investigate what is missing. But I would
> like some general information about the process of selecting and
> installing a kernel.
>
> Why install initrd? To enable kernel selection at boot time (and get
> the old system back when something fails)?
>
> I have now /initrd on my system, but this directory is empty. In
> /boot there is a initrd.img file. After I boot I get a selection
> menu? Is this all there is to preparing a system for a kernel
> upgrade?
>
> Is bf2-4 a kernel with everything imaginable enabled and will I have
> to load extra modules for my system when using the i686 kernel?
>
> Apart from the fun of trying out new stuff and learning, will there
> be a real world performance difference when I use an optimized
> kernel?
>
> Those are the issues I can think of. Are there any other topics,
> gotchas or whatever to consider?
>
> Bob
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 03:18:55AM +0000, Doug MacFarlane wrote:
> > > I use pppoe to get online. For the first few seconds after PPP has
> > > established a link, I see various error message in the log from
> > > fetchmail and ddclient indicating they can't reach a destination.
> >
> > If you assigned a default gateway to the NIC (you may have 2 of them,
> > actually, it appears), and that default gateway is on the local LAN, then
> > you won't pick up the new default gateway via the PPPoE negotiation.
> >
> > If you do a netstat -r you should get confirmation of this . . .
> >
> > Remove the default gateway and you should be fine . . .
>
> I do have two NICS but I think I solved issues with routing and
> gateways some time ago. I don't bring up eth0 at boot which hardware-wise
> is the one being used by PPP.
>
> Eth1 is brough up at boot and points to the local network. However
> it's not the default gateway.
>
> Netstat -r shows:
>
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
> Iface 147dyn1.com21.c * 255.255.255.255 UH 40 0
> 0 ppp0 localnet * 255.255.255.0 U 40 0
> 0 eth1 default 147dyn1.com21.c 0.0.0.0 UG 40 0
> 0 ppp0
>
> Should I change things?
>
> Bob
> [I'm not subscribed, please cc me.]
>
> This system started out with nullmailer installed. Other packages
> depending on mail-transport-agent have been installed since then, e.g.,
> the at(1) command.
>
> Then I installed the qmail-src package, built qmail, and tried to install
> the resulting .deb. But dpkg complained:
>
> [/tmp/qmail]# dpkg -i qmail_1.03-24_i386.deb
> dpkg: regarding qmail_1.03-24_i386.deb containing qmail:
> qmail conflicts with mail-transport-agent
> nullmailer provides mail-transport-agent and is installed.
> dpkg: error processing qmail_1.03-24_i386.deb (--install):
> conflicting packages - not installing qmail
> Errors were encountered while processing:
> qmail_1.03-24_i386.deb
>
> Of course, Debian would not let me remove nullmailer without also removing
> at(1) and other packages like mutt and mailx, even though the very next
> command would have been to install qmail as another MTA.
>
> I ended up verifying that nobody had any at(1) jobs scheduled, then went
> ahead with the nullmailer purge, which took at with it. After the qmail
> deb was installed, at/mutt/mailx/... were then reinstalled.
>
>
> I've read the various user guides, but they don't mention this kind of
> situation AFAICT. What was the correct solution? How do I tell dpkg that
> "hey, I've got this .deb sitting right here, I'm just swapping one package
> for another that provides the same requirements, but it's going to take
> more than one command to do it, so stop complaining"?
>
>
> Phil
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:04:20AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
> > Karl E. Jorgensen wrote:
> > > > 3. Copy all files from root partition to second HD.
> > >
> > > Beware of symbolic links...
> >
> > Ah, good point. cp would actually change all symlinks (and hard links)
> > into separate copies, wouldn't it. So perhaps archiving to tar files
> > would be better. tar understands both symlinks and hard links, right?
>
> In the past I've had problems with tar; restoring symlinks did not
> always work. AFAIR it was something with symlinks that pointed to
> symlinks that pointed to symlinks .... pointed to a proper file. It gave
> me errors during the restore. I resorted to cpio in the end.
>
> I guess that if you use something like this (the verbose way for
> readability):
> # (cd /; tar --create \
> --to-stdout \
> --one-file-system \
> --preserve # may be redundant. rtfm :-} \
> --numeric-owner \
> --exclude /home \
> --exclude /var \
> / ) | (
> cd /root-backup; tar --extract \
> --file - \
> --preserve \
> --same-owner )
>
> and it completes without errors, then I think you'll be safe :-) [Sorry,
> I haven't got the disk space to test with].
>
> As long as you don't have any hard links between e.g. /home and /var (or
> other weird crosslink stuff like that), you should be OK. Most sensible
> people would use symlinks for that anyway. (Although I cannot see any
> mention of hard links in the debian policy!?)
>
> > > You may want to look into ext2resize, it claims to be able to resize a
> > > filesystem (but you still have to resize the underlying partition
> > > afterwards).
> >
> > If you reduce an X MB filesystem to Y MB (X > Y obviously), and the
> > existing files aren't all in the first Y MB, will it move them?
>
> I believe it does. Authoritative docs in the package.
>
> > > Another way to do this could be to
> > > - make a backup of /etc and /var
> > > - save the output from "dpkg --get-selections"
> > > - do a complete reinstall on the new root partition
> > > - restore /etc (I'm not sure about /var...)
> > > - make sure you install the same packages as you had before:
> > > dpkg --set-selections < yourfile && apt-get dselect-upgrade
> >
> > That sounds like a lot more work. Copying files from one HD to another,
> > and back again, seems simpler, as long as symlinks and hard links are
> > respected.
>
> It probably is :-) But there's always more than one way to do things.
>
> > Will "find / -type l" and "find / -links +1" show me all the symlinks
> > and all the files with hard links (other than the original directory
> > entry), so that I could verify afterwards that everything was restored
> > correctly, or fix by hand those that weren't?
>
> Yep. If you're paranoid then you may even want to do md5sums or
> byte-by-byte comparison of files. Don't forget to check ownership
> (numeric owners, if you boot from a CD), permissions and (possibly)
> modification times (some programs react on that, e.g. diald).
>
> Note: The output from "ls" is not immediately usable here -
> directories will probably have different sizes, and so will
> last-accessed times.
>
> HTH
> Could someone please explain to me why, when I try to remove all gnome
> libraries, it tries to install a whole whack of s**t?
>
> I find this _very_ confusing and non-intuitive. I want it to remove.
> Remove, not install. Remove!
>
> Mike
>
> pmerd071:~# apt-get --purge remove "libgnome*"
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> Note, selecting libgnome-pilot1-dev instead of libgnome-pilot-dev
> The following extra packages will be installed:
> bonobo-activation gconf2 gnome-terminal gnome-vfs-extfs gnomemeeting
> libart-2.0-2 libatk1.0-0
> libbonobo-activation4 libbonobo2-0 libbonobo2-common libbonoboui2-0
> libbonoboui2-common
> libgconf2-4 libgcrypt1 libglade2-0 libglib2.0-0 libgnome2-0
> libgnome2-common libgnomecanvas2-0 libgnomecanvas2-common libgnomeui-0
> libgnomeui-common libgnomevfs2-0
> libgnomevfs2-common libgnutls4 libgtk-common libgtk2.0-0 libgtk2.0-common
> liblinc1
> libopenh323-1.9.3 liborbit2 libpango-common libpango1.0-0
> libpango1.0-common libpt-1.3.3
> libsdl1.2debian libsdl1.2debian-oss libzvt2.0-0 rep-gtk rep-gtk-gnome
> sawfish sawfish-gnome
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> galeon* galeon-common* gdkxft-capplet* gnome-applets* gnome-bin*
> gnome-control-center*
> gnome-core* gnome-help* gnome-libs-data* gnome-media* gnome-panel*
> gnome-panel-data*
> gnome-pilot* gnome-session* gnotepad+* gnotepad+-help* gpgp* gtkdiff*
> libcamel0* libcapplet0*
> libeel-data* libeel0* libgdk-pixbuf-gnome2* libgdkxft0* libglade-gnome0*
> libgnome-pilot1*
> libgnome-vfs-common* libgnome-vfs0* libgnome32* libgnomeprint-bin*
> libgnomeprint-data*
> libgnomeprint15* libgnomesupport0* libgnomeui32* libgnorba27*
> xscreensaver* xscreensaver-gnome*
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> bonobo-activation gconf2 gnome-vfs-extfs libart-2.0-2 libatk1.0-0
> libbonobo-activation4
> libbonobo2-0 libbonobo2-common libbonoboui2-0 libbonoboui2-common
> libgconf2-4 libgcrypt1
> libglade2-0 libglib2.0-0 libgnome2-0 libgnome2-common libgnomecanvas2-0
> libgnomecanvas2-common libgnomeui-0 libgnomeui-common libgnomevfs2-0
> libgnomevfs2-common
> libgnutls4 libgtk-common libgtk2.0-0 libgtk2.0-common liblinc1
> libopenh323-1.9.3 liborbit2
> libpango-common libpango1.0-0 libpango1.0-common libpt-1.3.3
> libsdl1.2debian libsdl1.2debian-oss libzvt2.0-0 sawfish
> The following packages will be upgraded
> gnome-terminal gnomemeeting rep-gtk rep-gtk-gnome sawfish-gnome
> 5 packages upgraded, 37 newly installed, 37 to remove and 22 not upgraded.
> Need to get 13.5MB of archives. After unpacking 21.4MB will be freed.
> Do you want to continue? [Y/n]
Reply to: