HOWTO: Upgrade to Debian Unstable

[debian_dummy]

Thanks for the reply and the link to the bugs site. I'm learning all the time !

Anyway, my libpam-runtime.postinst file already includes the patch - I didn't touch it. Contents of that file are below. I also tried changing the version number as suggested in the first post at the bugs.debian site but still no joy. Have I got it right ? I tried running dpkg --configure libpam-runtime but got an error 1. Results at base of post.

<< contents of file>>

#!/bin/sh -e

# If the user has removed the config file, respect this sign of dementia # -- only create on package install.

if [ -z "$2" ] || dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 0.76-17
then
for configfile in common-auth common-account common-session \
common-password
do
if [ ! -f /etc/pam.d/$configfile ] || \
fgrep -q `md5sum /etc/pam.d/$configfile` \
/usr/share/pam/$configfile.md5sums 2>/dev/null
then
cp /usr/share/pam/$configfile /etc/pam.d/
fi
done
test -r /etc/pam.d/other.pre-upgrade &&rm -f /etc/pam.d/other.pre-upgrade fi

<< end of file>>


root@coffer:~# dpkg --configure libpam-runtime
Setting up libpam-runtime (0.76-18) ...
dpkg: error processing libpam-runtime (--configure):
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Errors were encountered while processing: libpam-runtime

[Durand Hicks]

I just ran apt-get -s install -t unstable libpam-runtime and it shows version 0.76-17 as well as being a clean package. Version 0.76-18 is the faulty one and it appears it might have been replaced moments ago?

[debian_dummy]

Thanks for your help, it's greatly appreciated. This bug seems super fresh as the patch was entered only today 13/14 April.

BTW - My version of apt-get seems to be very old. I checked because the commands you gave me just don't work unless I change them. My version is 0.5.4, Aug 19, 2001.

For example -
1) dpkg remove --purge libpam-runtime libpam0g libpam0g-dev
dpkg: need an action option

I tried a apt-get -f install apt but it just keeps harping on about dependencies. Gee .. this is more fun than pulling off Band Aids/ sticking plaster .... :-)

[Durand Hicks]

Ok, what if you tried:

dpkg --purge libpam-runtime libpam0g libpam0g-dev

? Does that remove it correctly? And you say apt-get doesn't work like mine does? Meaning you can't use:

apt-get -s install -t testing libpam-runtime

?

[Durand Hicks]

Oops, I made a boo boo. Two posts ago I typed:

dpkg remove --purge libpam-runtime

which obviously is incorrect. I meant to say:

apt-get remove --purge libpam-runtime

They are similar, you'd think they are one and the same. Apt-get is more for package management and resolving dependencies in one shot whereas dpkg does it one package at a time. Still dpkg --purge is the better command of the two as you won't be removing half of your install as you would with apt-get. But apt-get does have a fail safe with the -s in its command, allowing you to simulate if apt-get can resolve the packages or not prior to commiting the command.

[debian_dummy]

OKAY - finally got rid of the 3 packages by using

dpkg --force- --purge libpam-runtime libpam0g libpam0g-dev

What's next ?

root@coffer:~# dpkg --force- --purge libpam-runtime libpam0g libpam0g-dev
(Reading database ... 111824 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing libpam-runtime ...
Purging configuration files for libpam-runtime ...
<I snipped out lots of stuff about dependancies>
Purging configuration files for libpam0g ...
root@coffer:

A test to make sure

root@coffer:~# dpkg --purge libpam-runtime libpam0g libpam0g-dev
dpkg - warning: ignoring request to remove libpam-runtime which isn't installed.
dpkg - warning: ignoring request to remove libpam0g which isn't installed.
dpkg - warning: ignoring request to remove libpam0g-dev which isn't installed.
root@coffer:~#

[debian_dummy]

Success !! Thanks for your great help, patience and support Durand !

I did a apt-get update and then apt-get -f install and then numerous dpkg --force overwrite command and then the apt-get -f install went smoothly ..... Sweeeeet ...

One final question - how do I avoid this happening again ? Stick to stable or is this a rare occurence that an update will break a system ?

[Durand Hicks]

Whew! I'm glad you got this sorted out. As for preventing this from happening again, you can't, but you can minimize the problems with various tools at your disposal. Remember the apt-get tricks I showed you? If you have a mixed system of stable/testing/unstable and you want to make it unstable, you would first edit /etc/apt/apt.conf and change the default release to unstable. Next you would open a console as root and type:

apt-get update

followed by:

apt-get upgrade

However, IMO, I think the better idea would be to test first and then commit instead:

apt-get -s -t unstable upgrade

followed by:

apt-get -t unstable upgrade

To get a more debian system as opposed to knoppix/debian, you would do this:

apt-get -s -t unstable dist-upgrade

That will remove some programs and add new ones to make it more debian specific but some knoppix components will remain. Debian unstable is, from what I understand, more stable than most distributions' stable entries. But it is experimental software and you must consider it as such. Think of it as beta software, and you will need to be aware that there will be some broken packages that can't resolve properly. Testing is supposedly beta too, but it's more polished as most of the bugs have been or is being worked out before it is released as stable. Personally, I think testing is more current than stable and just as stable as stable, but not as bleeding edge as unstable.

[rarrr]

Sorry, it's unclear to me why you would want to do this - why not simply install Debian?

Mmmm... hardware detection. Some of us have painfully weird hardware, and want the advantages of what Knoppix does for us - but are still set on having a good ole' Debian install.

There are other ways to do this, I'm sure, but... this works well enough for me

Crap... can't delete this post either. I just realized I was replying to something written a year ago... sorry folks

[A. Jorge Garcia]

That's ok, I must have missed this thread when it first came out and I have found it most useful now!

Thanx,
AJG