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