I'm trying to update a RedHat 9 system that's not been updated in a while.
If I try: up2date -u I get: RPM package conflict error. The message was: Test install failed because of package conflicts: package krb5-libs-1.3.1-1 (which is newer than krb5-libs-1.2.7-14) is already installed
How do I get past this?
[FWIW: This server is a development server with lots of Apache vhosts, MySQL databases and not a lot else. It is only ever accessed via SSH/http/samba.]
Mark Rogers wrote:
If I try: up2date -u I get: RPM package conflict error. The message was: Test install failed because of package conflicts: package krb5-libs-1.3.1-1 (which is newer than krb5-libs-1.2.7-14) is already installed
Thus far my attempts at fixing this have (predictably!) made things worse! RPM dependency hell!
I have now broken, and therefore uninstalled, yum and up2date. Reinstalling yum gives: # rpm -Uvh yum-2.0.8-0.1.rh9.rf.noarch.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:yum ########################################### [100%] # yum Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/yum", line 22, in ? import yummain File "/usr/share/yum/yummain.py", line 22, in ? import clientStuff File "/usr/share/yum/clientStuff.py", line 25, in ? import pkgaction File "/usr/share/yum/pkgaction.py", line 25, in ? import rpmUtils File "/usr/share/yum/rpmUtils.py", line 12, in ? from urlgrabber import URLGrabError File "/usr/share/yum/urlgrabber.py", line 21, in ? import urllib2 File "/usr/lib/python2.2/urllib2.py", line 101, in ? import ftplib File "/usr/lib/python2.2/ftplib.py", line 68, in ? all_errors = (Error, socket.error, IOError, EOFError) AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'error'
The yum docs suggest that this results from an incorrect yum package but I've checked and double checked that (and tried a handful of alternatives).
This is likely to end up at the point where I try a CD-based upgrade to CentOS4. Will this be likely to succeed or am I wasting my time? Any other hints?
Mark Rogers wrote:
Mark Rogers wrote:
If I try: up2date -u I get: RPM package conflict error. The message was: Test install failed because of package conflicts: package krb5-libs-1.3.1-1 (which is newer than krb5-libs-1.2.7-14) is already installed
Thus far my attempts at fixing this have (predictably!) made things worse! RPM dependency hell!
[SNIP]
It was exactly this that made me give up on SuSE some years ago. If one keeps them up-to-date religiously, then they're usually ok, but if one lets them lag behind more than a little... Oh dear. Long live Gentoo!
Cheers, Laurie.
PS. Although to be fair, all Linux systems these days needs fairly constant attention, as things do change at a phenomenal rate.
Laurie Brown wrote:
[SNIP]
It was exactly this that made me give up on SuSE some years ago. If one keeps them up-to-date religiously, then they're usually ok, but if one lets them lag behind more than a little... Oh dear. Long live Gentoo!
Cheers, Laurie.
PS. Although to be fair, all Linux systems these days needs fairly constant attention, as things do change at a phenomenal rate.
Which is one reason why I have just moved over to NetBSD.
Ian
Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org
Laurie Brown wrote:
PS. Although to be fair, all Linux systems these days needs fairly constant attention, as things do change at a phenomenal rate.
Which is one reason why I have just moved over to NetBSD.
For those of us who last tried NetBSD when it required far more attention than Debian stable, can you tell us how you feel it's less attention-seeking than a Linux-based system and what's improved recently, please?
Thanks,
MJ Ray wrote:
Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org
Laurie Brown wrote:
PS. Although to be fair, all Linux systems these days needs fairly constant attention, as things do change at a phenomenal rate.
Which is one reason why I have just moved over to NetBSD.
For those of us who last tried NetBSD when it required far more attention than Debian stable, can you tell us how you feel it's less attention-seeking than a Linux-based system and what's improved recently, please?
Thanks,
Er, one kernel, one set of packages, all dependencies sorted.
Ian
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 03:08:39PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
Ian bell ianbell@ukfsn.org
Laurie Brown wrote:
PS. Although to be fair, all Linux systems these days needs fairly constant attention, as things do change at a phenomenal rate.
Which is one reason why I have just moved over to NetBSD.
For those of us who last tried NetBSD when it required far more attention than Debian stable, can you tell us how you feel it's less attention-seeking than a Linux-based system and what's improved recently, please?
Thanks,
Er, one kernel, one set of packages, all dependencies sorted.
I'm very interested in this discussion, preferably without too much strong advocacy please.
I currently run Slackware which suits me well as a mostly command line driven version of Linux. I'm considering alternatives though and I wonder how the various BSDs compare. Are there any sites out there with comparisons of FreeBSD, NetBSD, maybe some Linuxes and others?
cl@isbd.net wrote: [...]
I wonder how the various BSDs compare. Are there any sites out there with comparisons of FreeBSD, NetBSD, maybe some Linuxes and others?
http://lwn.net/Distributions/ compares most of the Linux distribtions, but I only found advocacy-inspired *BSD-comparisons.
By the way, http://www.uk.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ and http://www.uk.debian.org/ports/netbsd/ confuse matters.
Regards,
cl@isbd.net wrote:
I'm very interested in this discussion, preferably without too much strong advocacy please.
I currently run Slackware which suits me well as a mostly command line driven version of Linux. I'm considering alternatives though and I wonder how the various BSDs compare. Are there any sites out there with comparisons of FreeBSD, NetBSD, maybe some Linuxes and others?
I am a slackware user too. I started in linux with the likes of redhat and suse but they have too much hand holding for my liking and debian is just so unwieldy to install. Slackware was a pleasant middle ground for me; a good range of useful packages, simple straightforward install, good documentation so I can find out how to hack most things I want at the command line.
Its downsides for me are are 2.4 kernel and an over reliance on some very general but complex scripts like hotplug which actually hinder command line configuration.
I was looking for something simpler, purer I suppose and then I read Cliff Stoll's book 'The Cuckoo's Egg' about hacking and cracking 20 years ago. He was using BSD Unix at Berkeley and something about the way it all worked struck a chord with me so I went and looked at the current BSD offerings. I was pleasantly surprised to find good hardware detection, straightforward install, zero buggering about with complex scripts, excellents docs, a single kernel source that compiles unmodified on a huge range of platforms yet still supports old processors with few resources. For me it's a learning experience and I am having great fun. It is more Unix-like than Linux but there are Unix zealots who will spedily point out that none of the BSD variants are true Unixes, so now I have downloaded Solaris (5 CDs worth) which officially is a Unix.
I am not saying the BSDs are better than Linux, just different and in some ways better for me. After all they are just tools and the best tool to use depends on the job. I still have this laptop (p4) running slack, I have a PC (1GHz Celeron) in my workshop running Windows 2000 (which is surprisingly stable) for the proprietary microcontroller development software tools I need to use, and an old K5-475 running NetBSD.
YMMV.
Ian
On Tuesday 01 August 2006 19:59, Ian bell wrote:
I started in linux with the likes of redhat and suse but they have too much hand holding for my liking and debian is just so unwieldy to install.
I also started out with SuSE, played with Red Hat, and finally gave up on RPM based distros after a nasty experience with Ark Linux.... Debian's install left a lot to be desired (damned ugly then, and it hasn't improved much since).. However, most of the live CDs such as Knoppix & Morphix provide a reasonably painless way to install.
Debian has done much to improve the install system, there is even a GUI replacement under development - Read "eye candy included, but still following the same ncurses based format". One saving grace is a reboot after installing a bootstrap system is no longer required.
Progeny (a.k.a. Ian Murdock) ported Red Hat's Anaconda installer over to Debian and has been providing testing/unstable CDs for some time now. Anaconda may not be to everyone's liking, but it works - I occasionally build Sarge based CDs for a few people wanting to give Debian a spin.
Regards, Paul.
The final straw with Ark Linux - An upgrade for libc6 was made available which was duly installed.... However, the base system did not have a static shell, so the post install scripts failed to run leaving the system in an unrecoverable state.
Paul wrote:
I also started out with SuSE, played with Red Hat, and finally gave up on RPM based distros after a nasty experience with Ark Linux.... Debian's install left a lot to be desired (damned ugly then, and it hasn't improved much since)..
That closely mirrors my experience.
However, most of the live CDs such as Knoppix & Morphix provide a
reasonably painless way to install.
Agreed, they are a great inprovement over regular debian.
Debian has done much to improve the install system, there is even a GUI replacement under development - Read "eye candy included, but still following the same ncurses based format". One saving grace is a reboot after installing a bootstrap system is no longer required.
I am notinterested in eye candy - Slack still uses a text based install but it is simple, fast and elegant.
Progeny (a.k.a. Ian Murdock) ported Red Hat's Anaconda installer over to Debian and has been providing testing/unstable CDs for some time now. Anaconda may not be to everyone's liking, but it works - I occasionally build Sarge based CDs for a few people wanting to give Debian a spin.
Indeed, I never liked Anaconda - painfully slow.
Ian
Ian bell wrote:
Paul wrote:
I also started out with SuSE, played with Red Hat, and finally gave up on RPM based distros after a nasty experience with Ark Linux.... Debian's install left a lot to be desired (damned ugly then, and it hasn't improved much since)..
That closely mirrors my experience.
Mine too, but then I discovered Gentoo. It has its faults, especially the early versions, but nowadays, it's pretty good, and I don't, ever, want to go near an RPM-based system again. Sadly, most "corporates" use RH because it's "supported". That's a real shame because IMO it's just another symptom of "Microsoft Syndrome" and it precludes me from a lot of work I could do standing on my head.
Cheers, Laurie.
Laurie Brown wrote:
Ian bell wrote:
Paul wrote:
I also started out with SuSE, played with Red Hat, and finally gave up on RPM based distros after a nasty experience with Ark Linux.... Debian's install left a lot to be desired (damned ugly then, and it hasn't improved much since)..
That closely mirrors my experience.
Mine too, but then I discovered Gentoo. It has its faults, especially the early versions, but nowadays, it's pretty good, and I don't, ever, want to go near an RPM-based system again.
It is said that Gentoo's package system is based on the pkgsrc system of NetBSD.
Ian
Ian bell wrote:
[SNIP]
It is said that Gentoo's package system is based on the pkgsrc system of NetBSD.
AIUI, that's correct. Of course, it's evolved a great deal in the last 3 years or so, and has a lot of enhanced functionality.
Cheers, Laurie.
Paul lists@bulldoghome.com wrote:
The final straw with Ark Linux - An upgrade for libc6 was made available which was duly installed.... However, the base system did not have a static shell, so the post install scripts failed to run leaving the system in an unrecoverable state.
Interesting. I've noticed other distributions having libc-upgrade pain and I've rescued one system using sash, a static shell, after some nice intruder tried to patch its libc. I think a libc upgrade may have been the final killer for my Gentoo test system a few years back, but my memory isn't great...
How do the older distributions handle libc upgrades? Is a static shell the only way around that or just the easiest? If GCC depends on glibc, how can compiled distributions upgrade?
Thanks for any more info,
On Saturday 05 August 2006 13:43, MJ Ray wrote:
How do the older distributions handle libc upgrades? Is a static shell the only way around that or just the easiest? If GCC depends on glibc, how can compiled distributions upgrade?
Older Red Hat RPMs required a static shell to execute the post install script embedded within the glibc package. Taking a quick look at a couple of $random glibc.spec files, I see RH now compiles a static bin called glibc_post_upgrade which does the same thing - Basically, calling ldconfig (which also needs to be a static bin) and a couple of other system utilities. Once ldconfig has been executed, any subsequent programs can be dynamically linked..
For source distributions, it goes without saying that the compiler suite also needs to be statically compiled. If you have ever done a Linux From Scratch install, you would have to have compiled a minimal bootstrap system with static gcc, shell, along with sed & awk (as I recall).
Regards, Paul.
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 03:08:39PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Er, one kernel, one set of packages, all dependencies sorted.
Err, other than more than one potential version of the kernel... and the kernel being changed mostly for the sake of new hardware support... how is that different from just using the standard debian repositories? Oh, except of course you get to do lots of "make" in the ports tree. (well, unless you're using pkg_add and pointing it to a http address for the package...).
Anyways - everything wins hands down over Windows, so feh.
Cheers,
Brett Parker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 03:08:39PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Er, one kernel, one set of packages, all dependencies sorted.
Err, other than more than one potential version of the kernel... and the kernel being changed mostly for the sake of new hardware support... how is that different from just using the standard debian repositories?
Security.
Ian
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 07:24:54PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 03:08:39PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Er, one kernel, one set of packages, all dependencies sorted.
Err, other than more than one potential version of the kernel... and the kernel being changed mostly for the sake of new hardware support... how is that different from just using the standard debian repositories?
Security.
Now, there's an interesting angle, what in particular are you talking about security wise? If it's software, then, err, well, dude... I don't know if you'd noticed, but debian has a rather nice security repository for stable and now testing, there are also DSAs which also generally cover unstable - this is the same source as used in the *BSD distributions on a whole. So I can only assume that you've fell for the marketing that OpenBSD has for its *base* system, which claims to be secure - you know how the default install is so secure? (1) nothing is enabled and (2) nothing is damned well installed.
So, if it's purely the kernel you're talking about, then one of the debian BSD projects may be right up your alley... personally, I quite like having a kernel that can actually cope with my hardware.
Thanks,
Brett Parker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 07:24:54PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Security.
Now, there's an interesting angle, what in particular are you talking about security wise? If it's software, then, err, well, dude... I don't know if you'd noticed, but debian has a rather nice security repository for stable and now testing, there are also DSAs which also generally cover unstable - this is the same source as used in the *BSD distributions on a whole. So I can only assume that you've fell for the marketing that OpenBSD has for its *base* system, which claims to be secure - you know how the default install is so secure? (1) nothing is enabled and (2) nothing is damned well installed.
Er, no I am using NetBSD.
So, if it's purely the kernel you're talking about, then one of the debian BSD projects may be right up your alley... personally, I quite like having a kernel that can actually cope with my hardware.
Indeed; NetBSd for example has had a native Ralink RT 2500 chip set driver for a long time yet most Linux distros still struggle with ndiswrapper.
IAn
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:37:04PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 07:24:54PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Security.
Now, there's an interesting angle, what in particular are you talking about security wise? If it's software, then, err, well, dude... I don't know if you'd noticed, but debian has a rather nice security repository for stable and now testing, there are also DSAs which also generally cover unstable - this is the same source as used in the *BSD distributions on a whole. So I can only assume that you've fell for the marketing that OpenBSD has for its *base* system, which claims to be secure - you know how the default install is so secure? (1) nothing is enabled and (2) nothing is damned well installed.
Er, no I am using NetBSD.
Ah the distribution that concentrates on *portable* (not neccessarily secure) code... that'll run on anything from a toaster to the washing machine. I see.
So, if it's purely the kernel you're talking about, then one of the debian BSD projects may be right up your alley... personally, I quite like having a kernel that can actually cope with my hardware.
Indeed; NetBSD for example has had a native Ralink RT 2500 chip set driver for a long time yet most Linux distros still struggle with ndiswrapper.
Ah ha! *Finally* - the one piece of hardware that I know actually does have better hardware support in *BSD than in linux (that's the card they use in the newer soekris boxes too, hence I've actually got one working in OpenBSD...). Weirdly however, there is support and documentation on making them work in linux available from their *official* website... weirder still, the driver is GPL'd... So I expect it to make it in to a linux kernel some time RSN.
Better yet - there's the http://rt2400.sourceforge.net/ link on their website (http://www.ralinktech.com/supp-1.htm) which is a step in the right direction... and debian has a bunch of source packages that can be compiled against the kernel headers - so, err... yeah - maybe some people just need better sysadmins?
"Cheers",
Brett Parker wrote:
Ah ha! *Finally* - the one piece of hardware that I know actually does have better hardware support in *BSD than in linux (that's the card they use in the newer soekris boxes too, hence I've actually got one working in OpenBSD...).
Ah, so you fell for the marketing hype then?
Weirdly however, there is support and documentation on making them work in linux available from their *official* website... weirder still, the driver is GPL'd... So I expect it to make it in to a linux kernel some time RSN.
Don't understand why it has taken so long.
Better yet - there's the http://rt2400.sourceforge.net/ link on their website (http://www.ralinktech.com/supp-1.htm) which is a step in the right direction... and debian has a bunch of source packages that can be compiled against the kernel headers - so, err... yeah - maybe some people just need better sysadmins?
Yeah, been there, done that but it's broken.
Ian
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 09:40:31PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Brett Parker wrote:
Ah ha! *Finally* - the one piece of hardware that I know actually does have better hardware support in *BSD than in linux (that's the card they use in the newer soekris boxes too, hence I've actually got one working in OpenBSD...).
Ah, so you fell for the marketing hype then?
Nope - happens that the boss likes OpenBSD for firewalls - and that box *only* runs pf (Packet Filter) and ssh (weirdly, locked down to trusted hosts via pf...). It's got a smaller footprint for a firewall, and for our actual office where there is potentially sensitive information, that is on the *outside* layer, just inside of that, after the DMZ, is the internal firewall, which is another soekris running debian sarge with a 2.6 kernel and iptables.
Weirdly however, there is support and documentation on making them work in linux available from their *official* website... weirder still, the driver is GPL'd... So I expect it to make it in to a linux kernel some time RSN.
Don't understand why it has taken so long.
As far as I can tell, they've been there for "some time".
Better yet - there's the http://rt2400.sourceforge.net/ link on their website (http://www.ralinktech.com/supp-1.htm) which is a step in the right direction... and debian has a bunch of source packages that can be compiled against the kernel headers - so, err... yeah - maybe some people just need better sysadmins?
Yeah, been there, done that but it's broken.
hmm - weird... all I did (to test the build) was...
apt-get install rt2500-source m-a build rt2500
and magically, I have a debian package built for my current kernel with the modules in it. Easy peasy simple tastic stuff.
Cheers,
Brett Parker wrote:
hmm - weird... all I did (to test the build) was...
apt-get install rt2500-source m-a build rt2500
and magically, I have a debian package built for my current kernel with the modules in it. Easy peasy simple tastic stuff.
Yes, weird it is. Could not get it to compile under Slack or Zenwalk - maybe its a gcc version thing - probably another reason I like NetBSD ;-)
Ian
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 10:17:48PM +0100, Ian bell wrote:
Yes, weird it is. Could not get it to compile under Slack or Zenwalk - maybe its a gcc version thing - probably another reason I like NetBSD ;-)
Oh yes you did, you got it working under Slackware 10.1... http://lists.alug.org.uk/main/2006-February/023999.html (well, I suppose unless you got a pre-built module from somewhere else).
Thanks Adam
Laurie Brown wrote:
It was exactly this that made me give up on SuSE some years ago. If one keeps them up-to-date religiously, then they're usually ok, but if one lets them lag behind more than a little... Oh dear. Long live Gentoo!
Ian bell wrote:
Which is one reason why I have just moved over to NetBSD.
This is all a bit defeatest!
The RH9 server is only an internal web development server and I could probably transfer everything to a new distro pretty quickly, which might be what I need to do. But I shouldn't need to!
-
Adam Bower -
Brett Parker -
cl＠isbd.net -
David Reynolds -
Ian bell -
Laurie Brown -
Mark Rogers -
MJ Ray -
Paul