home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   alt.os.linux.suse      Suse is actually not that bad      138,051 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 136,858 of 138,051   
   Carlos E.R. to bad sector   
   Re: zypper dup, nix backlevel?   
   07 Sep 19 20:20:45   
   
   From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 07/09/2019 14.21, bad sector wrote:   
      
      
   > When i got up the run was holding because some package (elf?) was not   
   > unpackable. Issued an 'ignore' and the run completed. But by then there   
   > were 200 new updates so i did those, with the same issue/handling as   
   > above. Other than some 50 no-downgrades and the above all SEEMED well.   
   >   
   > On reboot it went into emergency mode, I looked up the suggested panic   
   > file and it ended with a filesystem issues proposing that i do an   
   > unconditional manual fsck. That in turn found a single inode type of   
   > problem proposing a fix, so commanded, done. The next boot was   
   > problem-free.   
   >   
   > How is it possible to run into 'downgrades' *at all* when the subject   
   > packages on disk and on the repo are thus presumably newer than any   
   > proposed downgrade?  I don't get this.   
      
   That's one of the clues that makes me want to see "zypper lr --details" ;-)   
      
   However, it is typical with packman. For some reasons, some of their   
   packages sometimes get a lower number, but they are newer. A "zypper   
   dup" will do them happily. A "zypper up" will complain.   
      
   >   
   > The last several attempts to update had bombed for assorted reasons, the   
   > last 2 or 3 with the cited fs issue, each time the installation had been   
   > recovered from an image file made with dd.   
      
   Was the partition mounted when you did the dd? That means you have to   
   fsck each time you use it.   
      
   > That recoverd installation   
   > worked fine each time, and the update attempt was then initiated from   
   > it. I had not run fsck against the system, maybe i should have, is it   
   > possible that zypper upset the fs?   
      
   No. Only if the system crashes or the pweroff sequence gets broken.   
      
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca