On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 04:00:09PM -0700, Willie Wonka wrote: > > Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > Hi; > > what does apt-cache policy hdparm show? > > ~$ apt-cache policy hdparm > hdparm: > Installed: 6.1-2 > Candidate: 6.6-1 > Package Pin: 6.6-1 > Version Table: > 6.6-1 990 > 500 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org testing/main Packages > *** 6.1-2 990 > 990 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org stable/main Packages > 990 ftp://ftp.nl.debian.org stable/main Packages > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > > > > ummm... this is bad, since its your running kernel. > > Do ya think ? ;-) :) > I know, I don't understand - notice it also wants to REMOVE "initrd-tools", and > "base-config" -- ....there goes the w-h-o-l-e neighborhood too! yup. baby and bathwater, meet window... > > > > Am I to presume that *IF* I had actually gone through with this - then All > > > those packages above *_and_their_dependencies_* will be resolved? > > > > > > It turns out 'hdparm' (the one lone pkg I would like to "upgrade"), > > > requires/depends on a newer version of "libc6" (which is H_U_G_E pkg) with > many > > > many system libraries. > > > *** yeah, I'd bet this is your problem. Is kernel-image-2.6.8 in sarge > > dependent on the earlier version of libc6? my sid system shows that > > the kernel(linux) image packages recommend libc6, but some of its > > dependencies depend on libc6, so a libc6 upgrade would cascade through > > the whole system. To run a testing version of hdparm, you need a > > testing version of libc6 which means you need a testing version of > > kernel-image dependencies which means you need a testing version of > > your kernel-image. > > ahhhh...just as I suspected - but you said it much better than I ever could ;-) > :) > > > > The REMOVED entries concern me deeply -- am I to understand that my > > > Kernel-image(s) will be auto-Upgraded?? Is this necessary to resolve all > the > > > various (new and upgraded) package dependencies? Right now, I'm running; > > > > > > ~$ uname -a > > > Linux <hostname> 2.6.8-3-686 #1 Thu May 25 02:27:57 UTC 2006 i686 > GNU/Linux > > > > > > Are the "Remv" lines showing me which version I will be upgraded to, after > the > > > Removal? Taking this line For ex; > > > > > > Remv kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686 (2.6.8-16sarge3 Debian-Security:3.1/stable) > > > > > > > > no, its says it will REMOVE your kernel, as in you'll have no kernel > > when its down. > > Understood and THANKS! ....Warning heeded! > But why/what are the items in parentheses there for ?? > Is it telling me that I would _need_ those versions listed in parentheses, in > order to fufill dependencies...or what ?? The versions listed are NEWER than > those - an example is the "initrd-tools" line; I honestly don't know except that it won't be upgraded to that version. That is likely a reference to the actual deb file it is removing by removing that package. > > Inst module-init-tools [3.2-pre1-2] (3.2.2-3 Debian:testing) > > hmmm...something's fishy here > > > > Is that line above showing me that after removing > > > kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686...that I'll then be either "upgraded to" or > > > "installed" or "running" kernel-image-2.6.8-16 ? Why on earth does it want > to > > > remove my working Kernel images? > > > because you've upgraded libc6 which the kernel-images indirectly > > depend on. > > I see - but does it not know that One _needs_ a Kernel-image ?? with great freedom comes great responsibility. the apt system has no way of knowing what your intentions are or whether you have another kernel floating around. Maybe there should be some sanity check if the running kernel is the same as one to be removed, but who knows. And I suppose, once you're running, you don't strictly NEED a kernel anymore, provided you don't reboot... > Earlier in this thread and starting with a purely Debian Sarge 3.1r1 (and > having ONLY upDated, once a week ) but never; until yesterday that is, have I > upGraded). I upgraded *prior* to adding any "testing" references anywhere on my > system. > > > > Apologies, but I don't see packages like "Base-config" and > > > "Kernel-image-x.x.x..." in any of these list headers above; > > > ? the sudo is not a problem. > > I meant the command output of ($ sudo apt-get -s -t testing install hdparm) - > that this will start the chain of events, leading to many woes... okay, sorry. > > Thanks -- that's what I mean about _that_sudo_command (meaning that particular > one -- I guess I was too lazy at the time to retype the whole thing...likely I > was just more involved with trying to understand what's happening - my bad) > Understandable. Its amazing what people assume about what others understand eh? > > well, if running without a kernel is a correct way, then sure ;-P > > I was waiting for that :-p > > > ISTM, though I haven't followed your thread closely, that what you > > want to do is not do-able because of the libc6 upgrade. > > I see -- Thanks > > > I think you might be much better served to try and pull the sources > > from testing and compile them yourself on your old version of libc6, > > I see -- now is where I start to get a little into the 'unknown' - I was hoping > to get into compiling my own kernel sometime in the not too distant future, but > for now, I'm still quite a bit green on these things. Trying to understand the > system, the way the OS functions - and how it behaves, can be pretty > challenging, but I'm making in-roads, slowly. You know, its a lot of fun, this process of learning a new system and nothing is better than learning by doing. trial and error is the best tool, provided you don't totally bork something and end up giving up in frustration. > > > or bite the bullet and move all the way up to testing which seems to > > be what you'd HAVE to do to use the testing version of hdparm anyway. > > I thought about that - and am still contemplating the move.... > > > maybe backports has a copy for you? > > Do I understand correctly about "backports" -- it's basically a "customized" > kernel ? backporting is when a newer version of a package is compiled for an older system. I don't run sarge so others can chime in here, but typically I think its used for running a new kernel within stable to get some bit of hardware support that might be missing in the stock kernels. Also, some of the rapidly moving targets (I see a lot about backports of OpenOffice.org) have improved greatly since sarge came out making the newer versions highly desirable within the sarge/stable context. > I originally started this thread when I came across this URL link to; > <http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/system/hardware/!INDEX.html> huh? I get some spamish meta search engine thing. > which is where I first noticed an Updated 'hdparm'...Why do you think it's not > clear about which "version" (sarge, testing, sid) it can be applied to? > Oh...perhaps because it's (hdparm) not a "distribution" (Debian) specific > utility? doh! so just out of curiosity, why do you need/want a newer version of hdparm? is there some new functionality that you can't get from the sarge version? > > > Please though get advice from others because I don't run sarge and I'm > > guessing at all this. > > > > .02, ymmv, IANA<insert appropriate career here> etc. > > Hey -- atleast you stopped this sometimes overly cavalier, wreakless man from > acting too boldly ......and driving off the cliff ;-) never be afraid to drive over a cliff. the worst that can happen is you'll land at the bottom, anything other than that involces some kind of flying :) A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature