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

Re: debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso missing files for install without mirror

On 11/2/18 5:17 PM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
dpchrist@holgerdanske.com wrote:

I downloaded debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso several months ago via:


<snip> - image sounds ok.

<snip> - basic d-i setup

It fails with a pop-up dialog:

     	[!] Select and install software
	Installation step failed
	An installation step failed.  You can try to run the failing item again
from the menu, or
	skip it and choose something else. The failing step is: Select and
install software

Note that I did not select a mirror.

Apparently, debian-9.5.0-amd64-xfce-CD-1.iso is missing the packages
required for a default installation (?).

If I go back and use a network mirror (my local Approx server), I can
finish the install successfully:

Can anyone confirm this bug?

Yes. I've just tested it and I can see the same problem. By switching
to the syslog (VT4) I can see that there problem is with the mutt

Nov  2 18:14:59 in-target: The following packages have unmet dependencies:
Nov  2 18:14:59 in-target:  mutt : Depends: libgpgme11 (>= 1.2.0) but it is not installable
Nov  2 18:14:59 in-target:         Depends: libnotmuch4 (>= 0.21~rc1) but it is not installable
Nov  2 18:14:59 in-target: E: in-target: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

There is a bug here, and I think it's possibly in tasksel. Mutt is not
on the installation CD, and neither are its dependencies libgpgme11
and libnotmuch4.

*However*, the installer has automatically added security.debian.org
to the sources.list of the new system and peformed an "apt-get
update". This found a security update for mutt, and mutt is Priority:
standard so tasksel decided it should be installed. But the
dependencies are not on security.debian.org and not on the CD -->

That's how this becomes a problem. For now, if you have security
updates installed then you'll need to enable a mirror or start with a
larger installation CD. Sorry... :-/

Thank you for confirming the defect, and thank you for the detailed analysis.

My intent was to install just what was on the CD onto a machine in my LAN. I was unaware that d-i connected to the Internet when I told it not to use a mirror. As security.debian.org is not a mirror in the usual sense, perhaps this kinda sorta makes sense to the Debian developers. For me, it violates KISS and the Principle of Least Surprise. I think the d-i needs to be more clear about if/ when it intends to connect to the Internet, and obtain explicit user approval. Which package do I file a bug report against?

I view the fact that the d-i couldn't obtain a security update package to be a defect in the Debian security package distribution chain. If 'apt-get update' finds that a security update package is available and the d-i wants to install that package, then 'apt-get update' must be able to download that package. Which package do I file a bug report against?


Reply to: