*--* 1998-05-19 laptop/apt bo->hamm upgrade report
CONFIGURATION
machine: IBM Thinkpad 486 (360CE)
memory: 20MB
disks: 1.44 floppy
240MB HD
cdrom: n/a
scsi: n/a
sound card: not supported (?)
video card: WD90C24
modem: n/a
net card: Kingston EtheRX PCMCIA
partitions: /dev/hda1 (20MB swap)
/dev/hda2 (~200MB root)
TESTING TARGET:
task: upgrade bo to hamm using apt
source: apt_0.0.13-bo1, mirrors as of 1998-05-18
state: laptop with rather minimal, 170MB bo setup, well
configured
PREPARATION:
Install apt. Edit /etc/apt/sources.list and run 'apt update'
to get new package list.
Remove extraneous packages manually in preparation, simply to
clear up disk space.
RESULT:
Upgrade went very smoothly. apt report 205 packages upgraded,
37 newly installed, 14 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Bash/readline bug not tickled.
PROBLEMS:
apt 0.13 had a problem sometimes with a pkg being held (bug
#22618). Jason says that will be fixed in the next version.
#This lead to my PCMCIA problems.
util-linux not upgraded; this is because of getty, which is no
longer in the archive. Solution: 'apt-get install
util-linux'.
Random dpkg core dump during installation: Core was generated
by `dpkg --unpack tetex-bin_0.9-4.deb tetex-base_0.9-5.deb
elvis-tiny_1.4-5.deb tet...'. Program terminated with signal
11, Segmentation fault. Don't even know where to start
reporting that one.
emacsen-common installation has some serious problems. First,
the lisp-compilation ran twice, once on emacsen-common
installation, and once with the other packages were installed
(bug to be submitted). Second, dependancies in the lisp
packages themselves is ignored at emacsen-common postinst
time, leading to bad ordering of lisp package compilation (bug
#21143). Neither are critical as far as hamm release mgmt,
#however.
xdm was started up prematurely, I believe. It cycled a number
of times, not really able to start up, just flashing the
screen, dying, trying again, ad infitium (looks the same as
Bug#22685). I was able to proceed installing packages in the
interrum periods when the console was available (about a one
second window), and eventually it stopped cycling (cf
Bug#22544 et al). Unfortunately, xdm started scrampling the
console after cycling so many times, and capitalized
characters got hosed for some reason (bug to be submitted).
A number of packages are still installed that are libc5 based.
This is probably more of a feature with our archive than
anything else. Here's the list:
# pkg-deptree libc5
libc5
bitchx-bin
cfgtool
ibcs
ksmbfs
libdb1
libg++27
apt
libgdbm1
libjpeg6a
libpam0
libpam0-altutil
libpam0
libpam0-altutil
libpaper
libpng1
libpwdb0
libpam0-altutil
libreadline2
libtiff3
ncurses3.0
bitchx-bin
libreadline2
pine
pcmcia-cs
pcmcia-modules-netboot.3
pine
slang0.99.34
svgalib1
svgalib1-bin
svgalib1-bin
tcl74
expect
tcl75
tcl76
tk42
termcap-compat
tk42
wg15-locale
xaw3d
xlib6
tk42
xaw3d
xpm4.7
zlib1
libtiff3
apt
Other problems may exist; testing still proceeding on the box.
It's late and I want to get this out.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
* 'apt dist-upgrade' is a robust and recommendable bo/hamm
upgrade. One problem with users may be getting things in an
ok state to begin with. Other may be problems for users
where required packages are not actually put on hold (i.e.,
PCMCIA).
* apt should tell why packages are held back when the are held
back.
* apt should detect and respond to low disk space limitations
in the download cache area (/var/cache/apt/archive). The
simplest solution would be for it to simply 'apt-get clean'
itself every now and again, when disk space is neeed.
* X11 upgrade was not as smooth as it should be. xdm should
not be started during xbase configure step, or else it
should only be started conditionally, given that we could
monitor that it was starting ok. Probably easier not to
start it at all, but rather to instruct the user how to test
it and tell them to boot to get it going?
--
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: