Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

[SID - Unstable] Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

- - ALL UNSTABLE / TESTING THREADS SHOULD BE POSTED HERE - -
This sub-forum is the dedicated area for the ongoing Unstable/Testing releases of Debian. Advanced, or Experienced User support only. Use the software, give, and take advice with caution.
Message
Author
este.el.paz
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-03-09 19:56
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 1 time

[SID - Unstable] Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#1 Post by este.el.paz »

Folks:

Looks like it's about a year of returning to Debian via a Sid install . . . and overall it's been fine, system boots fast and runs well. Recently I found that my Lubuntu kinetic install was still running a 5.13 kernel and there was some other issue with the system and the forum/list-serve suggested that "it should be on 5.19xxx" and also "running such an ancient kernel could be a security sieve" . . . .

I responded, "well, across my numerous linux installs are a range of kernels, even Sid is still running 5.10 kernel . . . ." And I got the response, "That's not right, Sid should be on 5.19 as well . . . ." ????

So, today is "Sid" day on my desktop and I ran "uname -r" and sure enough "5.10" was the running kernel . . . . I launched synaptic and in "kernels and modules" it showed 5.10 as the only kernel installed, and then there were a few options for 5.19.0 . . . "image" "headers" and so forth. I selected a few of them and it found some other dependencies to install and I applied them and rebooted over into the master Grub controller, TW and updated the bootloader.

On cold boot, back into Sid and uname -r does show "5.19.0" . . . as the running kernel. I ran apt upgrade and a few packages to "autoremove" were there, did that, and then ran "autoclean" and that showed that it removed some "5.19" packages, as well as rsync, that synaptic had just installed??

Code: Select all

sudo apt autoclean
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading state information... Done
Del linux-compiler-gcc-11-x86 5.19.6-1 [502 kB]
Del linux-headers-5.19.0-1-amd64 5.19.6-1 [987 kB]
Del linux-image-5.19.0-1-amd64-unsigned 5.19.6-1 [70.1 MB]
Del linux-source-5.19 5.19.6-1 [132 MB]
Del linux-headers-5.19.0-1-common 5.19.6-1 [9,530 kB]
Del libelf-dev 0.187-2 [78.2 kB]
Del linux-kbuild-5.19 5.19.6-1 [759 kB]
Del linux-config-5.19 5.19.6-1 [634 kB]
Del rsync 3.2.6-1 [421 kB]


The question for this post is, why was Sid running an old 5.10 kernel, and why wasn't apt showing newer kernels to upgrade into . . . "automatically" versus having to do it "manually"???? My understanding was that Sid is "the cutting edge's cutting edge" and I assumed that meant, bleeding edge kernels??? Now that 5.19.0 is installed, will apt offer newer options or something has to be checked somewhere to get that to happen?? Looks like my TW install is running 5.19.10 . . . . Historically in my debian/ubuntu installs apt kept the kernels fresh . . . not the "newest" . . . but the newest stable kernel . . . something seems to have changed, now kernel upgrading is a separate process???

User avatar
canci
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2502
Joined: 2006-09-24 11:28
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#2 Post by canci »

Wait until OP hears that Sid is a development branch not intended for daily use, and that errors like these might just happen out of nowhere and then be fixed, and that no amount of excessive punctuation will change that...
Image Stable / Asus VivoBook X421DA / AMD Ryzen 7 3700U / Radeon Vega Mobile Gfx (Picasso) / 8 GB RAM / 512GB NVMe

READ THIS:

* How to Post a Thread Here
* Other Tips and Great Resources

CwF
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2636
Joined: 2018-06-20 15:16
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#3 Post by CwF »


pwzhangzz
Posts: 420
Joined: 2020-11-11 17:42
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#4 Post by pwzhangzz »

We are running the linux-image-5.19.0-2-amd64 (= 5.19.11-1) kernel so far pretty smooth including VBox:

ryzen@HX90:/boot$ ls
config-5.10.0-9-amd64 initrd.img-5.10.0-9-amd64 System.map-5.19.0-2-amd64
config-5.19.0-1-amd64 initrd.img-5.19.0-1-amd64 vmlinuz-5.10.0-9-amd64
config-5.19.0-2-amd64 initrd.img-5.19.0-2-amd64 vmlinuz-5.19.0-1-amd64
efi System.map-5.10.0-9-amd64 vmlinuz-5.19.0-2-amd64
grub System.map-5.19.0-1-amd64
ryzen@HX90:/boot$ uname -a
Linux HX90 5.19.0-2-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux

Of course we do not encourage anyone to run Sid especially as a work machine.
Last edited by pwzhangzz on 2022-09-27 18:30, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wizard10000
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 557
Joined: 2019-04-16 23:15
Location: southeastern us
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#5 Post by wizard10000 »

autoclean removes archived packages that are no longer available upstream - autoclean can't uninstall anything,

If Sid was running a 5.10 kernel it's kinda clear you either skipped a kernel upgrade (or maybe half a dozen of them or so) or you haven't upgraded Sid since 5.10.
we see things not as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin

pwzhangzz
Posts: 420
Joined: 2020-11-11 17:42
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#6 Post by pwzhangzz »

wizard10000 wrote: 2022-09-27 18:29 autoclean removes archived packages that are no longer available upstream
I remember the 5.19.0-2 kernel was briefly taken out of the Sid/unstable repo a couple of days ago (and later was put back in). Exactly what happened and why? Not a clue.

User avatar
wizard10000
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 557
Joined: 2019-04-16 23:15
Location: southeastern us
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#7 Post by wizard10000 »

pwzhangzz wrote: 2022-09-27 18:34I remember the 5.19.0-2 kernel was briefly taken out of the Sid/unstable repo a couple of days ago (and later was put back in). Exactly what happened and why? Not a clue.
I don't know - I looked at tracker.debian.org but no clue. I personally run Liquorix kernels on my Sid machines so I guess I missed this one :)
we see things not as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin

este.el.paz
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-03-09 19:56
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#8 Post by este.el.paz »

canci wrote: 2022-09-27 17:30 Wait until OP hears that Sid is a development branch not intended for daily use, and that errors like these might just happen out of nowhere and then be fixed, and that no amount of excessive punctuation will change that...
@canci, et al:

I don't use Sid "daily" . . . once a week I boot it and run an apt upgrade on it. But you mention "errors like these," . . . so that indicates that you see that as . . . an "error"???????? of some type?? The same "error" has seemed to have hit Lubuntu kinetic as well, i.e., kernels not upgrading or being stuck in the same one.

@wizard10000 "Skipped an upgrade"??? How would I do that if I'm running apt essentially every week?? But, thanks for mentioning "Liquorix kernels" . . . since I have a bunch of different OSs installed I'm not really "customizing" any one of them . . . basic install and then the basic apt to maintain them.

@pwzhangzz

Thanks for the post on it . . . and for the information that it was removed and then returned . . . .

CwF
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2636
Joined: 2018-06-20 15:16
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#9 Post by CwF »

CwF wrote: 2022-09-27 17:47 It's called a meta package
geesh
again: M E T A P A C K A G E

User avatar
mrjcd
Posts: 67
Joined: 2020-01-25 18:20
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#10 Post by mrjcd »

Code: Select all

mrjcd@OMG-Deb:~$ uname -a
Linux OMG-Deb 5.19.0-2-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Debian 5.19.11-1 (2022-09-24) x86_64 GNU/Linux
mrjcd@OMG-Deb:~$ date
Tue Sep 27 04:56:09 PM CDT 2022
8)

este.el.paz
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-03-09 19:56
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#11 Post by este.el.paz »

CwF wrote: 2022-09-27 19:10
CwF wrote: 2022-09-27 17:47 It's called a meta package
geesh
again: M E T A P A C K A G E
@CwF

Alrighty, "meta package" . . . that has no "meaning" to me as an end user . . . is that an answer to my question as to Q: "why Sid wasn't updating the kernel?" A: "The metapackage is interfering." ????

Or you're repeatedly answering some other question, just to emphasize it?? My post is asking why I had to manually upgrade the kernel from what was older than where Lubuntu was holding kinetic . . . to get it to where it is now, at 5.19.0 . . . . I wasn't asking how to get it to 5.19, it's there, done manually.

If you "answered" then it sounds like Sid installed a meta-package for the kernel, instead of installing a single edition?????

CwF
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2636
Joined: 2018-06-20 15:16
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#12 Post by CwF »

este.el.paz wrote: 2022-09-28 00:14 Sid installed a meta-package
It didn't. You might have.
If you don't have that package it will never install a new kernel.
If you do, it will.

este.el.paz
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-03-09 19:56
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#13 Post by este.el.paz »

CwF wrote: 2022-09-28 00:23
este.el.paz wrote: 2022-09-28 00:14 Sid installed a meta-package
It didn't. You might have.
If you don't have that package it will never install a new kernel.
If you do, it will.
@CwF

Ah, well, that wouldn't have been something I did . . . unless it went in after I upgraded the kernel, apt upgrade showed a few packages that had "linux-kernel" in the line item.

How to get this magic package installed?? "Sudo apt install THE METAPACKAGE" ??? And that will pull in the proper equipment???

CwF
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2636
Joined: 2018-06-20 15:16
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#14 Post by CwF »

este.el.paz wrote: 2022-09-28 00:14 "meta package" . . . that has no "meaning" to me as an end user
maybe the answer is in the link you skipped over.
I wouldn't necessarily want it installed in sid.

este.el.paz
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-03-09 19:56
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#15 Post by este.el.paz »

CwF wrote: 2022-09-28 02:59
este.el.paz wrote: 2022-09-28 00:14 "meta package" . . . that has no "meaning" to me as an end user
maybe the answer is in the link you skipped over.
I wouldn't necessarily want it installed in sid.
@CwF

OK, thanks for the reminder . . . I didn't skip over it, I checked it, but I'm not used to the Debian way of showing data . . . small link down at the bottom of the page, etc.

I see now that it would click me from .1 to .2 . . . but you also aren't recommending it for Sid . . . . So that means we're back to kernels are only upgraded "manually"??

CwF
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2636
Joined: 2018-06-20 15:16
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 192 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#16 Post by CwF »

este.el.paz wrote: 2022-09-28 14:24 "manually"?
Yes.
I'm not a fan of rolling upgrades into temporary issues, and then rolling a day later into the fix. It's needless fuss. Running Sid you should know exactly what you're after.

...and you need to remove them manually regardless.

este.el.paz
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-03-09 19:56
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#17 Post by este.el.paz »

CwF wrote: 2022-09-28 15:46
este.el.paz wrote: 2022-09-28 14:24 "manually"?
Yes.
I'm not a fan of rolling upgrades into temporary issues, and then rolling a day later into the fix. It's needless fuss. Running Sid you should know exactly what you're after.

...and you need to remove them manually regardless.
@CwF

OK . . . well, I have about 4 "rolling" SUSE installs . . . and that does "roll" into "temporariness" in waves of large numbers of packages . . . that is the nature of the rolling beast.

In contrast, once I got the hint to just run "apt upgrade" rather than "dist-upgrade" in Sid it's actually been pretty "stable" in comparison to the continuing rolling of the tumbling tumbleweed . . . .

I have "mainline" installed in my Lubuntu kinetic distro . . . which was a console app, but now seems to be a GUI app . . . makes it fairly easy to spot old kernels and remove them . . . .

User avatar
dilberts_left_nut
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 5346
Joined: 2009-10-05 07:54
Location: enzed
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#18 Post by dilberts_left_nut »

You should definitely be using "dist-upgrade" (well "full-upgrade" really) in Sid.
AdrianTM wrote:There's no hacker in my grandma...

este.el.paz
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-03-09 19:56
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#19 Post by este.el.paz »

dilberts_left_nut wrote: 2022-09-28 19:13 You should definitely be using "dist-upgrade" (well "full-upgrade" really) in Sid.
@dilberts_left_nut

Alrighty . . . happy to do that. But on another thread recently posted here I got specific advice to **not** run dist/full upgrade and just run upgrade. I do see that often leaves a bunch of packages . . . waiting . . . .

este.el.paz
Posts: 199
Joined: 2012-03-09 19:56
Location: SoCal
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Sid was running 5.10, manually upgraded to 5.19???

#20 Post by este.el.paz »

CwF wrote: 2022-09-27 17:47 It's called a meta package
https://packages.debian.org/sid/linux-image-amd64
@CwF et al:

So, today is "Sid" day or "Sid morning" and just checked synaptic and the META package was not installed, so I asked synaptic to APPLY the installation and it reports that was done "successfully" . . . .

Looking forward to a linux distro that upgrades the kernel via apt . . . . :idea:

Post Reply