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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E177F69730 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:50:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D666B28E1C for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:50:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (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 E49C328E0F for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:50:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id hs11so2286462ejc.1 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:50:10 -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=H6JTVLVH+BpAQK9VZIKHviSO9qlS7ejEJ9iuFrryihQ=; b=VGdKExRwBU7HW3hgv/IXJ35b8ptWq8j9ttibybcmLvpR2CyUOXR12Z4D7C5SCBrZ7s u0lj7d8MdZKYyNaIrTY0eVLm9OxBk41MQERP6n9nqicwKYDPMXbl8cSJEn8SHyqenNmS JXVUOWRV6oEPA0XtLnON3SDdlh0BJ/QYWelOxVgGDCWp0difac9JbaTLPyV3sgiDB3eq iTKunIlTaOpcfe8Hg5ZMeL81rroOM8aqQ2telDFYnzZs+duBkTMpvuZXl7zN5EbcPSOF nUETuw3EJEyGlRNP4zVMumZAKdug/6WhmLTJpyr+Wa0uuqW2NYHamSrXSPZ6DDXLXzUm 4VDQ== 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=H6JTVLVH+BpAQK9VZIKHviSO9qlS7ejEJ9iuFrryihQ=; b=c/TTfIask/FHUvGgF/qpsG5FY9oMmSdbOrId8ZyJiASl5B6REv0zudipsfelzdW8C7 OEOLoSWgjXstXi5U+eeAEcoGAbrvEOhTQyqdkPaFHkfirWVXu4saixgy+E3QU7+Hx6e3 cW7IDmL1VmWaxvxeTffF2n2pvKBq3C/YnogHKoGoDgNfElU16yw3leabwxxrIdLdfL/g aa51lJup1bJxOY+3GLr6cTeK9VhnEUGtMjGI/0aRmJM8y1pDZUIjx+dymYuUT60G8bDV cY5YbOZhssNRVAhhtG3KR8+fVZ+mBZPios7vcwXwbNkk3yvlL3S93x5pkTXSNalJ+X0l JJqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5316wRigKd+4s8fWvWKXXIgO3EEJDLcAOte5w7cDhnfRxRFpHg32 9/glMe9asoS7PpZKey7D4vd3zN4rqyo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw/QZgPmyoRskVPjTf3p7b/rGsXyrFVFNrWNjUh7eOZgEA5/gstDEoTLZ0xlywj9PbFGzjw9g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:da0:: with SMTP id go32mr8607465ejc.203.1614163804692; Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:50:04 -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 l7sm1231594edv.50.2021.02.24.02.50.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 Feb 2021 02:50:04 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: uwe.sauter.de@gmail.com To: Stoiko Ivanov Cc: Proxmox VE user list References: <20210224111140.0af49108@rosa.proxmox.com> From: Uwe Sauter Message-ID: <806e6159-3ca1-530a-ff98-99ac4a4ced05@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 11:50:03 +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: <20210224111140.0af49108@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 0.001 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. [proxmox.com, hs-esslingen.de] 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 10:50:11 -0000 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. 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 >> >> > >