Hi Mark,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 07:53:08PM +1000, Mark Huff wrote:
> I am having a problem with a user and would like some clarification if I
> did correct or incorrectly. Honest answers appreciated.
>
> I performed some work for a company on a Debian Linux system with the
> prompt on the system (no graphic frontends, etc) indicated it was a
> Debian 3.0 (Woody) built. The initial issue was a user outside of the
> company could not get an email sent to a user on the company's server.
> The company I was performing the work for is using Exim for the mail
> server, SMTP transactions are not logged.
>
> Because of the above fact, I desired to move them to Postfix email.
From this I would assume you are familiar with Postfix and not as
familiar with Exim. Could not Exim done this? Did someone upgrade the
system incorrectly and thus caused the error?
> As
> the system was showing me Woody build, I started dselect
NEVER use dselect! (this warning was told to me, and I never regreted
it)
> using the
> repository for debian sarge stable build (as I have in the past
> installed Sarge release candidates from 8/04). Dselect indicated
> numberous upgrades available for the system (which the system needed
> regardless). I started the update process, and Perl immediately
> crashed.
I prefer to handle any required upgrades before I fix any other
problems. Too many upgrades at one time is often trouble on a mixed
system. (as you suggest further down)
> User data, email access from pop/smtp, passwords, etc, were
> not effected, but web mail access via neomail was, needless to say,
> broken.
At least the system was not destroyed! Lucky!
>
> In doing a little research, I found a Debian 2.2 cd (labeled disk1), a
> Debian 3.0 cd (labeled disk1), and a Debian 3.1 cd (labeled disk1)
> laying near this system. What I am thinking is that while they may have
This sounds like you had a powder keg waiting for a match to move near
it! x-(
> upgraded enough of the Debian 2.2 for the prompt to indicate is was a
> Woody 3.0 system, there was still quite a bit of 2.2 (the perl is what I
> think was not upgraded), so that when the Perl 5.8.6 from the new stable
> build tried to install, the stuff on the system was so old that the
> install broke, and broke the perl that was on the system.
It does not sound like you have worked with Debian enough if you did not
check the state of the software versions before just fixing a 'small'
problem. I'd have ask here first or RTFM at debian.org.
>
> Question is - Are my assumptions correct? If anyone else has walked up
> to the box seeing the prompt I did would they have had any issue in
> trying the upgrade?
>
Cheers,
Kev
--
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
`$' $'
$ $ _
,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$$$$$b $,d$$b
,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ "' `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$ggggg$ $ $ $ ,$P"" $ $ $
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $ $
`Y$$P'$. `Y$$$$P $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature