Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
Hi;
> what does apt-cache policy hdparm show?
~$ apt-cache policy hdparm
hdparm:
Installed: 6.1-2
Candidate: 6.6-1
Package Pin: 6.6-1
Version Table:
6.6-1 990
500 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org testing/main Packages
*** 6.1-2 990
990 ftp://ftp.us.debian.org stable/main Packages
990 ftp://ftp.nl.debian.org stable/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
> ummm... this is bad, since its your running kernel.
Do ya think ? ;-)
I know, I don't understand - notice it also wants to REMOVE "initrd-tools", and
"base-config" -- ....there goes the w-h-o-l-e neighborhood too!
> > Am I to presume that *IF* I had actually gone through with this - then All
> > those packages above *_and_their_dependencies_* will be resolved?
> >
> > It turns out 'hdparm' (the one lone pkg I would like to "upgrade"),
> > requires/depends on a newer version of "libc6" (which is H_U_G_E pkg) with
many
> > many system libraries.
> *** yeah, I'd bet this is your problem. Is kernel-image-2.6.8 in sarge
> dependent on the earlier version of libc6? my sid system shows that
> the kernel(linux) image packages recommend libc6, but some of its
> dependencies depend on libc6, so a libc6 upgrade would cascade through
> the whole system. To run a testing version of hdparm, you need a
> testing version of libc6 which means you need a testing version of
> kernel-image dependencies which means you need a testing version of
> your kernel-image.
ahhhh...just as I suspected - but you said it much better than I ever could ;-)
> > The REMOVED entries concern me deeply -- am I to understand that my
> > Kernel-image(s) will be auto-Upgraded?? Is this necessary to resolve all
the
> > various (new and upgraded) package dependencies? Right now, I'm running;
> >
> > ~$ uname -a
> > Linux <hostname> 2.6.8-3-686 #1 Thu May 25 02:27:57 UTC 2006 i686
GNU/Linux
> >
> > Are the "Remv" lines showing me which version I will be upgraded to, after
the
> > Removal? Taking this line For ex;
> >
> > Remv kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686 (2.6.8-16sarge3
> > Debian-Security:3.1/stable)
> >
>
> no, its says it will REMOVE your kernel, as in you'll have no kernel
> when its down.
Understood and THANKS! ....Warning heeded!
But why/what are the items in parentheses there for ??
Is it telling me that I would _need_ those versions listed in parentheses, in
order to fufill dependencies...or what ?? The versions listed are NEWER than
those - an example is the "initrd-tools" line;
Inst module-init-tools [3.2-pre1-2] (3.2.2-3 Debian:testing)
hmmm...something's fishy here
> > Is that line above showing me that after removing
> > kernel-image-2.6.8-3-686...that I'll then be either "upgraded to" or
> > "installed" or "running" kernel-image-2.6.8-16 ? Why on earth does it want
to
> > remove my working Kernel images?
> because you've upgraded libc6 which the kernel-images indirectly
> depend on.
I see - but does it not know that One _needs_ a Kernel-image ??
Earlier in this thread and starting with a purely Debian Sarge 3.1r1 (and
having ONLY upDated, once a week ) but never; until yesterday that is, have I
upGraded). I upgraded *prior* to adding any "testing" references anywhere on my
system.
> > Apologies, but I don't see packages like "Base-config" and
> > "Kernel-image-x.x.x..." in any of these list headers above;
> ? the sudo is not a problem.
I meant the command output of ($ sudo apt-get -s -t testing install hdparm) -
that this will start the chain of events, leading to many woes...
> its a requirement to run apt-get, unless
> you change users to root.
I understand _that_ very well.... I've even managed to allow running any
command as 'sudo' without being prompted for a passwd in the shell all the time
-- by using visudo to edit the sudoers file as root, and adding this line;
$Username ALL= NOPASSWD: ALL
The tricky part was how to use Ctrl+ZZ (or was it Alt+ZZ, or Shift+ZZ) to
actually Save the changes ;-/
Had to read some of the Vi manual to learn that one -- thank you for the
explanation anyway.
> but yes, the command above that begins
> 'sudo' is forcing you to upgrade a bunch of stuff just to get the one
> package from testing, hdparm. In the process I think its trying to
> break your system.
Thanks -- that's what I mean about _that_sudo_command (meaning that particular
one -- I guess I was too lazy at the time to retype the whole thing...likely I
was just more involved with trying to understand what's happening - my bad)
> well, if running without a kernel is a correct way, then sure ;-P
I was waiting for that :-p
> ISTM, though I haven't followed your thread closely, that what you
> want to do is not do-able because of the libc6 upgrade.
I see -- Thanks
> I think you might be much better served to try and pull the sources
> from testing and compile them yourself on your old version of libc6,
I see -- now is where I start to get a little into the 'unknown' - I was hoping
to get into compiling my own kernel sometime in the not too distant future, but
for now, I'm still quite a bit green on these things. Trying to understand the
system, the way the OS functions - and how it behaves, can be pretty
challenging, but I'm making in-roads, slowly.
> or bite the bullet and move all the way up to testing which seems to
> be what you'd HAVE to do to use the testing version of hdparm anyway.
I thought about that - and am still contemplating the move....
> maybe backports has a copy for you?
Do I understand correctly about "backports" -- it's basically a "customized"
kernel ?
I originally started this thread when I came across this URL link to;
<http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/system/hardware/!INDEX.html>
which is where I first noticed an Updated 'hdparm'...Why do you think it's not
clear about which "version" (sarge, testing, sid) it can be applied to?
Oh...perhaps because it's (hdparm) not a "distribution" (Debian) specific
utility? doh!
> Please though get advice from others because I don't run sarge and I'm
> guessing at all this.
>
> .02, ymmv, IANA<insert appropriate career here> etc.
Hey -- atleast you stopped this sometimes overly cavalier, wreakless man from
acting too boldly ......and driving off the cliff ;-)
Thanks for your help -- I appreciate it -- plus it gives me more ideas, and
places to look
Regards
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
