LMDE BREAKAGES - tracking TESTING

[ckosloff]

Success!
But not exactly the way it was described, because package nvidia-kernel-dkms nvidia-glx was not installed.
So I installed it as root.
After a long while it was successful and I rebooted, then I got 25 new updates to install, which I did, I was prompted that lame package would be removed, so I OKed that.
Reboot after install and everything clean again in 3.0 kernel.

[samriggs]

@Sam, if i remember correct, it's not the first time you get this error, and the other time around you reinstalled. what changed (what did you installed lately, what did you tweaked, anything(?), that brought that back?

Hey zero
actually nothing this time around, this is the wifes system that this happened to this time, it was all updated perfect and working great till today when I did this update, I was waiting to update to see if that wine issue got fixed, she uses wine quite a bit, so nothing this time, I installed it orginally long long time ago, and everything worked perfect until today.
Oh well maybe I'll try a new install if this cannot be fixed, see if I can save her games first.
Just too bad, the first time on my system was my fault this time who knows what happended.

[anigramp]

On-topic: I had a massive download last week (including the dnet nonsense); I took this to be GTK3 and possibly GNOME 3. Haven't rebooted yet Could be about to try Debian's KDE

Eventually impatient enough to reboot; that worked for me. No GNOME 3. No problems whatsoever! Exactly what we expect from a Debian-based distro

[craig10x]

Sorry to veer off the main topic...but i was just curious....if one tracks debian stable, when the new version of stable comes in (i believe that is every 2 yrs approximately?) do you automatically get it as updates? how does that work? Is it kind of like a "long term rolling release" that doesn't require you to re-install to get the new version?

The reason i was wondering is if it does work that way,is that one might have a much more stable system then using testing and with new programs added through the "backports" method then you would also have a pretty up to date system as far as applications go...

[tdockery97]

Sorry to veer off the main topic...but i was just curious....if one tracks debian stable, when the new version of stable comes in (i believe that is every 2 yrs approximately?) do you automatically get it as updates? how does that work? Is it kind of like a "long term rolling release" that doesn't require you to re-install to get the new version?

The reason i was wondering is if it does work that way,is that one might have a much more stable system then using testing and with new programs added through the "backports" method then you would also have a pretty up to date system as far as applications go...

Apparently it's pretty simple. This example is Lenny to Squeeze, so in the future it would just be Squeeze to Wheezy: http://www.go2linux.org/how-to-upgrade- ... to-squeeze

[craig10x]

Thank you tdockery97...i checked out your link...doesn't look hard at all
Although i think i may try LMDE again when the re-spin isos come out, using the new monthly snapshots and pointed to "latest"....i will try it that way for awhile and hoping that will give my system an added stability...

[viking777]

Apparently it's pretty simple. This example is Lenny to Squeeze, so in the future it would just be Squeeze to Wheezy: http://www.go2linux.org/how-to-upgrade- ... to-squeeze

That is true, but if you are tracking the 'Stable' repo instead of 'Squeeze' or 'Wheezy' or whatever, you don't even have to do that.

The reason i was wondering is if it does work that way,is that one might have a much more stable system then using testing and with new programs added through the "backports" method then you would also have a pretty up to date system as far as applications go...

That has been suggested many,many times. So many times that I can't help but wonder why it doesn't actually exist. Possibly because maintaining a 'backport' repository compatible with 'Stable' but still satisfying the needs of a public using a two year old distribution would be harder work than running testing, sid and stable as completely separate distros.

Long and short of it is that the concept of an up to date distro and a stable distro rolled into one are mutually exclusive, so the user has to choose.

[craig10x]

Thanks for the explanation viking777...i guess i will just give the new lmde re-spin a try when it becomes available....hope i'll have better luck with it using the new "latest" monthly snapshot updates...

[vincent]

Warning for those tracking testing...libfreetype6 (version 2.4.6-1) has just arrived, and I've noticed that this new upstream release makes monospace font rendering rather ugly (rather noticeable with my Conky configuration). Bug has already been reported to the Debian BTS earlier; see here: http://bugs.debian.org/636844

My advice would be to hold libfreetype6 or pin it to version 2.4.4 via /etc/apt/preferences, or if you've already upgraded, fetch version 2.4.4 from snapshots.debian.org.

[graeme]

The reason i was wondering is if it does work that way,is that one might have a much more stable system then using testing and with new programs added through the "backports" method then you would also have a pretty up to date system as far as applications go...

That has been suggested many,many times. So many times that I can't help but wonder why it doesn't actually exist. Possibly because maintaining a 'backport' repository compatible with 'Stable' but still satisfying the needs of a public using a two year old distribution would be harder work than running testing, sid and stable as completely separate distros.

Mepis does just that. It works well, but you cannot expect every application to be backported (that said the community packagers are responsive to requests) and they limit the work by only supporting one desktop (KDE). I have found Mandriva backports to be pretty good in the past, but its future is not exactly clear.

[viking777]

Mepis does just that. It works well, but you cannot expect every application to be backported (that said the community packagers are responsive to requests) and they limit the work by only supporting one desktop (KDE)

Ah that is interesting, maybe craig10x could have a look at that then. Limiting the amount of backports they offer as well as the number of desktop choices is probably the only way the workload could be handled, it is just that as far as I am concerned they chose the wrong desktop so I never take any notice of Warren's generally excellent work.

I was using the old Debian stable about the time that it was due to be replaced by 'Squeeze' and it was like working in a time warp. In Windows terms a bit like going back to Win 95! It is amazing how quickly distros become outdated. Of course you can always run off to the 'Testing' or even 'Unstable' repositories and get what you think you need to keep 'Stable' updated, but then 'Stable' ceases to be stable if you see what I mean . I think that to be happy tracking Stable or anything based on it you have got to be committed to stability to the exclusion of all else. The latest Debian stable doesn't look that out of date right now, but just look at it in a couple of years time and see what you think then. Maybe Mepis is a happy medium, I don't know, but I always think there will be a conflict of interest between stability and modernity and that is not always appreciated by distro users. The answer of course is dual/triple booting and Mint is ideal for that.

[Helmsdeeper]

PcLinuxOs also does an excellent job "imho" at being a rolling distro in case you've never checked it out.

[viking777]

PcLinuxOs also does an excellent job "imho" at being a rolling distro in case you've never checked it out.

Check my Signature

[kmb42vt]

PcLinuxOs also does an excellent job "imho" at being a rolling distro in case you've never checked it out.

Yup, they do. And as soon as it comes in a 64 bit version and they replace that legacy grub with grub2 I might consider testing it out again.

[desmadre]

upgraded to the latest 3.0 kernel (last week) and virtualbox guests fail to start.
all virtualbox guests (various linux flavors, win, bsd) started with no problems prior to update.
when attempting to start a guest, virtualbox returns the following error:

Code: Select all

Please install the virtualbox-ose-dkms package and execute 'modprobe vboxdrv' as root.

i reinstalled virtualbox-ose-dkms, and executed 'modprobe vboxdrv' as root. this returns:

Code: Select all

FATAL: Module vboxdrv not found.


rebooted, still no luck.

Code: Select all

#uname -a

returns

Code: Select all

Linux hostname 3.0.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 24 02:24:44 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux

all kernel headers and sources are installed.

found no solutions available for this situation on either debian forums or lmde threads....

any ideas?

[nykur]

upgraded to the latest 3.0 kernel (last week) and virtualbox guests fail to start.
all virtualbox guests (various linux flavors, win, bsd) started with no problems prior to update.
when attempting to start a guest, virtualbox returns the following error:

Code: Select all

Please install the virtualbox-ose-dkms package and execute 'modprobe vboxdrv' as root.

any ideas?

Did you run /etc/init.d/vboxdrv setup as root? Because Virtualbox is working for me on two machines with same 64bit kernel, and I don't recall having to do much else.

[mockturtl]

Dropping to tty1 (ctrl+alt+F1, return to gnome with ctrl+alt+F7), I see

Code: Select all

Starting Virtualbox kernel modules:
modprobe vboxdrv failed.  Please use 'dmesg' to find out why... failed!

Here's my dmesg output.

screencap

[desmadre]

Code: Select all

#/etc/init.d/vboxdrv setup
/etc/init.d/vboxdrv: command not found

so i decided to re-install virtualbox-ose by executing the following commands

Code: Select all

#apt-get --reinstall  install linux-headers-3.0.0-1-amd64 virtualbox-ose
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 2 reinstalled, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B/665 kB of archives.
After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used.
(Reading database ... 245820 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace linux-headers-3.0.0-1-amd64 3.0.0-1 (using .../linux-headers-3.0.0-1-amd64_3.0.0-1_amd64.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement linux-headers-3.0.0-1-amd64 ...
Preparing to replace virtualbox-ose 4.0.10-dfsg-1 (using .../virtualbox-ose_4.0.10-dfsg-1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement virtualbox-ose ...
Setting up linux-headers-3.0.0-1-amd64 (3.0.0-1) ...
Examining /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d.
run-parts: executing /etc/kernel/header_postinst.d/dkms 3.0.0-1-amd64
dkms.conf: Error! No 'BUILT_MODULE_NAME' directive specified for record #0.
Error! Bad conf file.
File:
does not represent a valid dkms.conf file.
Setting up virtualbox-ose (4.0.10-dfsg-1) ...

dmesg returns the following as it pertains to virtualbox:

Code: Select all

 warning: `VirtualBox' uses 32-bit capabilities (legacy support in use)
[ 1485.616482] VirtualBox[3960]: segfault at 18 ip 00007f0c6d2ef189 sp 00007fff55ca7e20 error 4 in libstdc++.so.6.0.16[7f0c6d233000+eb000]

at this point, kernel compilation is over my head. not my strong suit when it comes to linux. prior to this all of the 2.6.* headers had reconfigured all of the modules themselves. this is the first time i've had this problem on any linux system whether it be ubuntu, fedora, centos, mint or debian.

all suggestions are appreciated.
thanks!

[viking777]

Uninstall the ose version and try virtualbox-nonfree instead, unless you have some moral objections to nonfree software. I can't guarantee it will work but mine does (I only had to run the vboxdrv setup command).

[Gerd50]

Upgraded virtualbox Oracle ubu lucid version 3.2.8 to natty version 4.0.6 today. It's working well. Some might cry, uhh, a
ubu package... but i'm not a friend of vb, use it very seldom and will find a solution if this one is giving up