Debian update caused major breakage in my workflow regarding

[JLloyd13]

The trolls are at large here it seems It is really really hard to break debian to an unfixable state. I have not reinstalled since i first installed woody ~17 years ago, using hundreds of 3-rd party packages, even mixing sid and testing at some point (never go sid if you intent to go back to stable - yep getting from there to the next stable taken a few hours of manual aptitude changes, but it wasnt broken). And all if this is irrelevant to the question at hand because nothing i have installed from ppas or self build packages can even theoretically touch namespaces.

If you have the skills to deal with that kind of potential dependency hell, good for you. But don't expect help fixing your mess if that's your setup. This is a forum for Debian questions, not DebianUbuntuSidTestingFranken Linux.

[Harkonnen]

...according to the internet it shouldn't have worked as it was setup at all (but it did).

Except when it didn't.

Yep, and that's is what interest me in this after i found a workaround. Why the **** it worked if it shouldn't and why update to some seemingly unrelated package broke it?

[kopper]

Yep, and that's is what interest me in this after i found a workaround. Why the **** it worked if it shouldn't and why update to some seemingly unrelated package broke it?

Well, if you take couple of Jenga blocks away and place the with new ones, the tower might still stand even if the blocks in the tower are of different size or shape. Until it doesn't, when you try to put yet another type of block in between or on top of it. You've been lucky, now your not.

Lame anecdote for your rather lame, previously well-documented problem of mixing repos.

[Harkonnen]

again, this definitely has absolutely nothing to do with mixing repos.

[debiman]

again, this definitely has absolutely nothing to do with mixing repos.

lol, i think i'll make a wallpaper from this

[Head_on_a_Stick]

@OP: I think the real lesson here is that this community will not offer support to FrankenDebian users.

Please reproduce this issue in a clean Debian system.

[dasein]

Please reproduce this issue in a clean Debian system.

And document the repro steps in sufficient detail to allow others to duplicate the phenomenon in its entirety.

[Harkonnen]

I have a feeling that people are responding without actually reading about situation, saw "FrankenDebain" - have to post some snarky remark.

What exactly here is to reproduce?! System in a current, up to date state behaves exactly as it supposed. Autofs + mount namespaces quirks are documented and there is a documented workaround (why the --make-shared is not a default i dont known, but there must be some reasons for this, there would be easier to change this than to document ). My confusion about situation came from the fact that i dont use mount namespaces explicitly, as soon as i realized the source of the problem i found the aforementioned documentation.

As its became apparent system behavior was abnormal before the update, but how exactly are you supposed to reproduce abnormal behavior if you dont know why it was abnormal and what exactly stopped it?!

[stevepusser]

Yeah, the only really possibly problematic repos I see in the list are the PPAs--the others are just backports repos. But there is a non-zero chance that something in those repos could also have been misconfigured. You are just trusting the maintainers (including me for Pale Moon) to know what they're doing, and of course some packages have the potential to accidentally damage your system much more than others.

I guess the point is that it's very going to be very difficult to pin down the blame for the breakage to a specific package remotely. You're going to have to really put in the work and reproduce it if you want to say for sure it's a Debian issue and can't be linked to any of those outside repos. It could be even be something that's harmless in a Debian update that only goes bad when it meets up with an outside package--who can really say from here?

[debiman]

I have a feeling that people are responding without actually reading about situation, saw "FrankenDebain" - have to post some snarky remark.

personally i can say that i was following this thread even before you posted your sources.
and even then the thread still had a chance to come to a constructive solution, but it was YOU who categorally refused to accept that your sources could have ANYTHING to do with the issue - and that's when things started to go "snarky".
because one doesn't need to be very clever to understand that you cannot make a statement like that.

an analogy:
guy drives home from the pub, in his car, drunk senseless, every weekend, for 17 years.
never has an accident.
only then he has one.
and he keeps on insisting that it has nothing to do with his drinking. that it CANNOT have anything to do with his drunkenness, because there was a chicken on the road that had NEVER been there before!