From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:56:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id p2so2088908edm.12 for ; 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 Cc: Proxmox VE user list References: <20210224111140.0af49108@rosa.proxmox.com> <806e6159-3ca1-530a-ff98-99ac4a4ced05@gmail.com> <20210224124053.6a2216b7@rosa.proxmox.com> From: Uwe Sauter 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 wrote: > >> Am 24.02.21 um 11:11 schrieb Stoiko Ivanov: >>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 10:56:49 +0100 >>> Uwe Sauter 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >