peculiarities with debian apt and amd64
Hullo there, I've been trying to set up a debian box with an amd64 processor. Just a standard install: stable is fine. I've taken the amd64 iso from here: http://www.kmuto.jp/debian/d-i/ sarge-custom-0801.iso I've edited my own apt sources list by hand and added these lines: deb http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian-amd64/debian/ stable main deb-src http://ftp.nl.debian.org/debian-amd64/debian/ stable main deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main apt complains that it can't find Packages. /var/lib/apt/lists show Release and Sources but no Packages, and then it shows security i386 Packages (If I comment out the security line I get the same complaint about Packages) cat /proc/cpuinfo knows all about the amd64ness of the box. The odd thing is that this install is identical to the other amd64 box, nutmeg, I have here: same iso, same sources list, and that is happy: nutmeg:/etc/apt# ls /var/lib/apt/lists/ ftp.nl.debian.org_debian-amd64_debian_dists_stable_main_binary-amd64_Packages ftp.nl.debian.org_debian-amd64_debian_dists_stable_main_binary-amd64_Release ftp.nl.debian.org_debian-amd64_debian_dists_stable_main_source_Release ftp.nl.debian.org_debian-amd64_debian_dists_stable_main_source_Sources lock partial security.debian.org_dists_stable_updates_main_binary-amd64_Packages security.debian.org_dists_stable_updates_main_binary-amd64_Release I've been round the install twice now and each time the same thing happens. Puzzled, Jenny
Hi Jenny On Tuesday 21 November 2006 14:05, Jenny Hopkins wrote:
I've been trying to set up a debian box with an amd64 processor. Just a standard install: stable is fine.
I've been round the install twice now and each time the same thing happens.
I myself went through the same fun'n'games a couple of weeks ago - From what I could gather from Debian's docs, there are no "official" amd64 packages in Sarge, so I jumped in with Etch. Aside from a couple of hicups, everything appears to be running fine. Zathras is mirroring both i386 and amd64 architectures, but I had to hack deb-mirror around a bit so that it didn't barf over the missing amd64 in Sarge. (ot that this really helps to solve your problem). Regards, Paul.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 03:00:11PM +0000, Paul wrote:
Hi Jenny
On Tuesday 21 November 2006 14:05, Jenny Hopkins wrote:
I've been trying to set up a debian box with an amd64 processor. ?Just a standard install: ?stable is fine.
I've been round the install twice now and each time the same thing happens.
I myself went through the same fun'n'games a couple of weeks ago - From what I could gather from Debian's docs, there are no "official" amd64 packages in Sarge, so I jumped in with Etch. Aside from a couple of hicups, everything appears to be running fine.
Fortunately, though, sarge-amd64 has got security support - so the unnofficial packages basically are official. (We've since found Jenny's problem on IRC - unfortunate case of broken install, she's working on it now...) Cheers, -- Brett Parker
On 21/11/06, Paul <lists@bulldoghome.com> wrote:
I myself went through the same fun'n'games a couple of weeks ago - From what I could gather from Debian's docs, there are no "official" amd64 packages in Sarge, so I jumped in with Etch. Aside from a couple of hicups, everything appears to be running fine.
Zathras is mirroring both i386 and amd64 architectures, but I had to hack deb-mirror around a bit so that it didn't barf over the missing amd64 in Sarge.
(ot that this really helps to solve your problem).
Regards, Paul.
Hi Paul, Thankyou anyway! It would appear I inadvertently grabbed the wrong install iso the second time around so had the wrong kernel. (Hangs head). I've downloaded the correct one now and all may be well. I've heard glowing reports about amd64, but I'm so unused to a different architecture that I've had loads of idiot problems like these so far. Sorry! Thanks, Jenny
Hi Jenny On Tuesday 21 November 2006 15:57, Jenny Hopkins wrote:
It would appear I inadvertently grabbed the wrong install iso the second time around so had the wrong kernel. (Hangs head). I've downloaded the correct one now and all may be well.
With the ever helpful assistance of Brett, I'm sure it won't take you long to get up and running.
I've heard glowing reports about amd64, but I'm so unused to a different architecture that I've had loads of idiot problems like these so far.
Well... I've been running amd64 for a couple of weeks now (and powerpc for a few months) and as long as you "go with the flow", nothing should jump out and bite. The stuff that has been giving me problems has been <*spit> java <*spit> and some screwball-ware claiming to be 64bit compliant.. As if -fno-strict-aliasing cures all evils.. I need a specific kernel patch that has yet to be ported to x86_64 (a.k.a. amd64) so I may well switch back or perhaps risk digging deep in to the internals of 2.6.19. Regards, Paul.
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 15:57 +0000, Jenny Hopkins wrote:
I've heard glowing reports about amd64, but I'm so unused to a different architecture that I've had loads of idiot problems like these so far.
It's mostly all cool and groovy, been on it for about 2 years now. Most things are fine as long as you stay away from binary only non-free stuff as most of that conveniently forgets the X86_64 bit platform. Although for how much longer I am not sure as a growing percentage of new kit is 64 bit capable. Also (fur Ubuntu at least) you often get a different set of bugs compared to the majority of users on x86.
On Tuesday 21 November 2006 23:32, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Also (fur Ubuntu at least) you often get a different set of bugs compared to the majority of users on x86.
Oh boy... How true that is, and not just Ubuntu... Currently trying to track a bug involving XDR encoded data being passed to/from amd64, powerpc, and i386 platforms. Decoding on the amd64 box is producing incorrect results.. Regards, Paul.
participants (4)
-
Brett Parker -
Jenny Hopkins -
Paul -
Wayne Stallwood