From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB641697C3
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:56:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A94A729EF6
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:56:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id AB1F229EE9
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:56:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id p2so2088908edm.12
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 03:56:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent
 :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=z1rX1tpM9GqMSVu/UKTggyJkv+k5HlIwwxiFfga+eYU=;
 b=YRjDxvKscheRI2hyaXUIMJnjWqfMMCpC6jKh24uw3S+pKG35B45xBYAuB5/Coh5AZV
 i3lXUX8Kp3Lv55MH1u39H+mpSrIlO6cFJHNPqX3V6uq5QhEX4OKgLXMwX1WXfwTNY+pS
 MM2f/LWfwn6hwlXSqGEB0FSN1tjl1bQFLEYLT51Rvt+19ZA/SFqXeu/RspjhBp8RVDhf
 EZSCeYMg/78YbM0Ml/OBzn593GPg2PPjU/F3vgB8m/MBbqcRp9sofF6Vn17II2nDO7iy
 NlIGk4gXmJAiPr/A8PX0bpIe50H0vUJKp+tHEAwi/Jz1v00y9Zw78ZQ1pg3qktzz8pqA
 mc1A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:reply-to:subject:to:cc:references:from
 :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to
 :content-language:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=z1rX1tpM9GqMSVu/UKTggyJkv+k5HlIwwxiFfga+eYU=;
 b=t8HiJlJBFCJ/qplcHqmU717XlpnUG56Mxv8ElcPT+QuP9LBoEZ8iQegA0DDb6laFGe
 xUt8+Wbmw9XIuE5lcVTDayxf+0AcSrU852jq1HJps6j/tM/vK9jcIQIHIMOie1CJptpV
 +KMohDW2FxdfOm5ApQ/elUkDLHZci2Mmcg2omivdEpgwAN5MlFEOcmQAtut/AMdYPkLX
 6xFmiairMJSwrLq1ysf4COWATvCi5So3x64SDjB2jZFixL8oCEB4ZthOeOCMSjVlaCoR
 9xSxw31V7RgsPagXdgRMqMupxH5EZcwf0pjXBRp6GKkChmsQoKfGjOkeY8sM3OfjGMV4
 aiFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532kFzqZ8URgPILNPS0tZaO1kP2G1b3sYGwtyfyikFU31KfladcZ
 72l1r7O8J3Jp5SdBvANTZBbqUX4GmPs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwLgs1dh4g6+ZxW6ARwsdmL9juSobRBMSEZTiH/5qQ2b8e+iIpFZ3Ad0za324lE9N4ROQHjLQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1c9c:: with SMTP id
 cy28mr29667511edb.275.1614167798448; 
 Wed, 24 Feb 2021 03:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a02:8070:a396:f000:5605:dbff:fe76:161d?
 ([2a02:8070:a396:f000:5605:dbff:fe76:161d])
 by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id n24sm1410534edr.62.2021.02.24.03.56.37
 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Wed, 24 Feb 2021 03:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com
To: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <d95acf82-c3c1-b94d-4f49-3e01d54d6894@gmail.com>
 <20210224111140.0af49108@rosa.proxmox.com>
 <806e6159-3ca1-530a-ff98-99ac4a4ced05@gmail.com>
 <20210224124053.6a2216b7@rosa.proxmox.com>
From: Uwe Sauter <uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1407c43c-a547-7e74-4558-1a2a15d27d60@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:56:37 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210224124053.6a2216b7@rosa.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: de-DE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 DKIM_SIGNED               0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
 not necessarily valid
 DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
 DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
 domain
 DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from
 domain
 FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 no trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [hs-esslingen.de, proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [PVE-User] 
 =?utf-8?q?Update_to_ZFS_2_available_=E2=80=93_breaks_?=
 =?utf-8?q?dependencies?=
X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, 
 <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, 
 <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:56:45 -0000

Am 24.02.21 um 12:40 schrieb Stoiko Ivanov:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:50:03 +0100
> Uwe Sauter <uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Am 24.02.21 um 11:11 schrieb Stoiko Ivanov:
>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:56:49 +0100
>>> Uwe Sauter <uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> since yesterday, 2021-02-23, updates for ZFS 2.0.3 are available.
>>>> Currently my systems have 0.8.5 installed. When trying to update using aptitude I get a popup reading:
>>>>
>>>> ###################
>>>> Some packages were broken and have been fixed:
>>>>
>>>> Keep the following packages at their current version:
>>>> libnvpair2linux [Not Installed]
>>>> libuutil2linux [Not Installed]
>>>> libzfs3linux [Not Installed]
>>>> libzpool3linux [Not Installed]
>>>> zfs-initramfs [0.8.5-pve1 (now, stable)]
>>>> zfs-zed [0.8.5-pve1 (now, stable)]
>>>> zfsutils-linux [0.8.5-pve1 (now, stable)]
>>>> ###################  
>>> With ZFS 2.0.0 most shipped libraries got bumped to new major versions
>>> (and new package names)
>>> e.g.
>>> libnvpair1linux -> libnvpair2linux
>>>
>>> usually this gets resolved correctly (and worked here on many systems)
>>> by running `apt full-upgrade` (instead of `apt upgrade`)
>>>
>>> It has been a while since I worked with `aptitude` - but did you
>>> run `aptitude full-upgrade`?
>>>
>>> else - does it work if you upgrade using `apt full-upgrade`?  
>>
>> ################################
>>
>> # apt update
>> Hit:1 http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/debian buster InRelease
>> Hit:2 http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/debian buster-updates InRelease
>> Hit:3 http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/debian-security buster/updates InRelease
>> Hit:4 http://ftp-stud.hs-esslingen.de/debian buster-backports InRelease
>> Hit:5 http://download.proxmox.com/debian/ceph-octopus buster InRelease
>> Hit:6 http://download.proxmox.com/debian/pve buster InRelease
>> Reading package lists... Done
>> Building dependency tree
>> Reading state information... Done
>> 15 packages can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see them.
>>
>> # aptitude full-upgrade
>> The following NEW packages will be installed:
>>   libnvpair2linux{ab} libuutil2linux{ab} libzfs3linux{ab} libzpool3linux{ab}
>> pve-headers-5.4.98-1-pve{a}
>>   pve-kernel-5.4.98-1-pve{a}
>> The following packages will be REMOVED:
>>   pve-headers-5.4.78-2-pve{u}
>> The following packages will be upgraded:
>>   libproxmox-backup-qemu0 libpve-common-perl libpve-guest-common-perl libpve-storage-perl
>> pve-container pve-firmware
>>   pve-headers-5.4 pve-kernel-5.4 pve-kernel-helper pve-manager pve-qemu-kvm spl zfs-initramfs
>> zfs-zed zfsutils-linux
>> 15 packages upgraded, 6 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
>> Need to get 0 B/159 MB of archives. After unpacking 296 MB will be used.
>> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>>  libzfs3linux : Breaks: libzfs2linux but 0.8.5-pve1 is installed
>>  libzpool3linux : Breaks: libzpool2linux but 0.8.5-pve1 is installed
>>  libnvpair2linux : Breaks: libnvpair1linux but 0.8.5-pve1 is installed
>>  libuutil2linux : Breaks: libuutil1linux but 0.8.5-pve1 is installed
>> The following actions will resolve these dependencies:
>>
>>      Keep the following packages at their current version:
>> 1)     libnvpair2linux [Not Installed]
>> 2)     libuutil2linux [Not Installed]
>> 3)     libzfs3linux [Not Installed]
>> 4)     libzpool3linux [Not Installed]
>> 5)     zfs-initramfs [0.8.5-pve1 (now, stable)]
>> 6)     zfs-zed [0.8.5-pve1 (now, stable)]
>> 7)     zfsutils-linux [0.8.5-pve1 (now, stable)]
>>
>>
>>
>> Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?] q
>> Abandoning all efforts to resolve these dependencies.
>> Abort.
>>
>> ################################
>>
>> Looks like I'm not getting the same updates as you do. I'll wait a few days and check back.
> could you try with `apt` instead of `aptitude`


Looks loke that made the difference.

Thanks!


> I just tried - and get the same issues when running aptitude (which uses a
> different resolver for conflicts) - apt is working fine though :)
> 
> Alternatively you should also be able to upgrade by cycling a few times
> through aptitudes suggestions.
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> 	Uwe
>>
>>> I hope this helps!
>>> Regards,
>>> stoiko
>>>
>>>   
>>>>
>>>> Could someone advice (possible from Proxmox team) advice on how to apply the updates in this
>>>> particular situation?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> 	Uwe
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pve-user mailing list
>>>> pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
>>>> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
> 
>