Attempting to update old install...

purple12 · 2010-09-13 23:21:22

I know I'm supposed to run pacman -Syu frequently, but I had a bad experience in the past that has left me somewhat fearful about updates. As a consequence, I've spent the last few months blithely operating my system (which I LOVE, btw!) and ignoring the inevitable. I know I'm sitting on a timebomb, but I don't have the system knowledge necessary to pull myself back quickly from a major bork. Thing is, I don't think I can put off the update any longer, so tomorrow I think I'll pull the -Syu trigger, then stand nack and watch what happens.

Here's my question for any gurus of a forgiving nature who also have time on their hands...

What can I expect given the length of time (5-6 months, possibly more...) that has elapsed since the last system update? To give some system info, here are the results of a couple of queries:

uname -a
Linux big-black 2.6.31-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Oct 23 10:03:24 CEST 2009 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux

pacman -Qs nvidia
local/nvidia 190.42-1
NVIDIA drivers for kernel26.
local/nvidia-utils 190.42-1
NVIDIA drivers utilities and libraries.

Some other miscellaneous details (selected from lshw)...

description: Desktop Computer
width: 64 bits
description: Motherboard
product: M2N-E
vendor: ASUSTeK Computer INC.
description: BIOS
vendor: Phoenix Technologies, LTD
physical id: 0
version: ASUS M2N-E ACPI BIOS Revision 1102 (09/21/2007)
description: CPU
product: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+
vendor: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD]
physical id: 3
bus info: cpu@0
version: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+
description: System Memory
physical id: 3f
slot: System board or motherboard
size: 6GiB

----------

...I'm running software RAID, with a mirrored /boot partition and RAID5 /home and /root partitions...

cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [raid1] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
md3 : active raid5 sdd4[0] sda4[3] sdc4[2] sdb4[1]
1432186368 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU]

md1 : active raid5 sda2[0] sdd2[3] sdc2[2] sdb2[1]
29302272 blocks level 5, 64k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] [UUUU]

md0 : active raid1 sda1[0] sdd1[3] sdc1[2] sdb1[1]
240832 blocks [4/4] [UUUU]

----------

...Any and all advice will be gratefuly received. Following the "update," email condolences may be sent in lieu of flowers...

Thanks!!!

Last edited by purple12 (2010-09-14 02:56:36)

ngoonee · 2010-09-13 23:27:07

Go read the news at archlinux.org for that time period, and you'll get the general idea.

Inxsible · 2010-09-14 00:08:54

With a rolling release model, it is generally recommended to update more frequently than NOT. That way since the updates are lesser, you can pinpoint the troublesome package if there is one. When you have a shitload of updates, its very difficult to revert back given a bunch of dependencies and what not.

jasonwryan · 2010-09-14 00:42:56

(just to make it the trifecta: three mod comments in a row...)

Please change your post title to something informative: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/For … ow_to_Post

Oh, and it is the stuff that you have installed from AUR that will cause you grief.

drcouzelis · 2010-09-14 01:37:56

Isn't it possible to update piece by piece? For example, look through your list of software updates and pick out the really big ones. Then just update them one by one, by using "pacman -S package_name". Maybe a good place to start is anything that's in [core].

Would that ease the transition?

And, yeah, your thread title is really lousy.

Edit: As mentioned in the replies below, updating packages by package is a bad idea.

Last edited by drcouzelis (2010-09-14 15:04:28)

pyther · 2010-09-14 01:43:11

drcouzelis wrote:

Isn't it possible to update piece by piece? For example, look through your list of software updates and pick out the really big ones. Then just update them one by one, by using "pacman -S package_name". Maybe a good place to start is anything that's in [core].
Would that ease the transition?
And, yeah, your thread title is really lousy.

No that would almost certainly cause things to break due to library upgrades and what not. Although there are depends, the depends aren't that restrictive. This means that it is very possible for a library to be updated breaking linkage.

Skripka · 2010-09-14 01:46:13

drcouzelis wrote:

Isn't it possible to update piece by piece? For example, look through your list of software updates and pick out the really big ones. Then just update them one by one, by using "pacman -S package_name". Maybe a good place to start is anything that's in [core].
Would that ease the transition?
And, yeah, your thread title is really lousy.

Given that his box appears to be a full year out-of-date...he can try...but given the dependency chains, he probably won't be able to. Especially with such an out-of-date Xorg/Nvidia/kernel/DE etc.

iBertus · 2010-09-14 02:52:47

Backup Data -> Nuke Box -> Reinstall Arch Linux

Oh.... and change thread title to something less serious sounding.

Last edited by iBertus (2010-09-14 02:53:36)

Allan · 2010-09-14 02:58:15

I did a pacman -Syu on a laptop that had not been updated for a whole year just the other day. There was not a problem...

flamelab · 2010-09-14 03:02:34

1)Fully update. That means, have core, extra,community open and

pacman -Syu

DO NOT update a package only, the whole system

2)If pacman says "pkg will replace pkg2" you wil answer "yes"
3)If nvidia drivers have "problem" before updating the kernel, remove them and reinstall (the new ones) in the eeeend.

If you have any problem during updating, post the output here and do not do anything else (like rebooting).

purple12 · 2010-09-14 03:07:16

OK...bowing to popular pressure, I changed the thread title.
Thanks for all the input. I really appreciate it. The consensus seems to be converging on the idea that this install is probably too ancient and fragile to update. OK, that's fine. I guess since the only thing really motivating the attempt was the fact that I broke a couple of smaller apps when I upgraded them, I should just roll these back and relax untill I decide to flatten the box and start over, which I'm kinda looking forward to anyway just for the practice.
This time around, I'll ditch the elaborate RAID setup in favor of keeping my data externally backed up and just maintaining a basic install with core apps. I guess we can chalk this one up as a lesson for my fellow n00bs out there: Arch is fun and rewarding, but if you ease up on the rolling release updates, consider yourself hosed.
thanks again...

purple12 · 2010-09-14 03:09:23

Hmmm... Ok, saw the most recent replies, and I guess I'll give the update a whack, since it now seems that there's at least a theorhetical chance of success...
I'll let the thread know how things go. I have a longtime Arch dev buddy who's agreed to help me mop up the gore post-update.
cheers!

Last edited by purple12 (2010-09-14 03:10:44)

Skripka · 2010-09-14 03:11:47

purple12 wrote:

OK...bowing to popular pressure, I changed the thread title.
Thanks for all the input. I really appreciate it. The consensus seems to be converging on the idea that this install is probably too ancient and fragile to update. OK, that's fine. I guess since the only thing really motivating the attempt was the fact that I broke a couple of smaller apps when I upgraded them, I should just roll these back and relax untill I decide to flatten the box and start over, which I'm kinda looking forward to anyway just for the practice.
This time around, I'll ditch the elaborate RAID setup in favor of keeping my data externally backed up and just maintaining a basic install with core apps. I guess we can chalk this one up as a lesson for my fellow n00bs out there: Arch is fun and rewarding, but if you ease up on the rolling release updates, consider yourself hosed.
thanks again...

You're not hosed until we say you're hosed.

Most of the time -Syu works just fine. There's a chance it will here too.

purple12 · 2010-09-14 03:50:44

OK, I was able to undo recent damage to core apps by rolling back using cached binaries. This is a very nice feature of the OS that I hadn't had occasion to use until now. Even though ny system is now just as useable as ever, the prospect of a fully updated installation is goading me to the very edge of the precipice...and..my ..toes are...slipping...

ngoonee · 2010-09-14 04:26:18

I have trouble understanding why you'd keep an install THAT out of date anyhow. Sure, not everyone updates daily, but how does a machine get left sitting for a year?

purple12 · 2010-09-14 22:10:05

ngoonee wrote:

I ...but how does a machine get left sitting for a year?

No real mystery, and I can't answer for the guy who let his laptop build get a bit old in the tooth ...In my case, though, it happened like this: After building my Arch box, I updated the code weekly like a good little lad...then, one day during a routine patch, I naively consented to an innocuous-sounding kernel upgrade. On the next bounce, my machine POSTed then hung in a way that required the intervention of a developer, two sleepless nights, and the intercessory prayers of a Catholic nun. After this, I developed an abiding fear of upgrades, especially the kernel kind. But here's the good news:
I have a couple of days off next week, so I've decided to table the update attempt until then, when I'll have my laptop with me for i-net access and can chat w/ my dev buddy. I'm actually looking forward to it....kind of a perverse sort of challenge.
I really like everything about Arch, and I want to develop the skills necessary to do my own t-shooting. It's a slow process, but I'm having fun!

--Thanks again, posters, and I'll update the thread with my results... ;-D

.:B:. · 2010-09-14 22:10:52

I think we need a new forum section called 'Kamikaze style: watch me go down in flames'.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-09-13 23:21:22

Attempting to update old install...

#2 2010-09-13 23:27:07

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#3 2010-09-14 00:08:54

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#4 2010-09-14 00:42:56

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#5 2010-09-14 01:37:56

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#6 2010-09-14 01:43:11

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#7 2010-09-14 01:46:13

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#8 2010-09-14 02:52:47

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#9 2010-09-14 02:58:15

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#10 2010-09-14 03:02:34

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#11 2010-09-14 03:07:16

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#12 2010-09-14 03:09:23

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#13 2010-09-14 03:11:47

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#14 2010-09-14 03:50:44

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#15 2010-09-14 04:26:18

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#16 2010-09-14 22:10:05

Re: Attempting to update old install...

#17 2010-09-14 22:10:52

Re: Attempting to update old install...

Board footer