greetings . . .
i've about concluded that i absolutely must upgrade my linux/tde install. i'm currently running 14.04 atop ubuntu 1204-LTS, which is at its end. hypothetically i should be able to do use ubuntu's system upgrade tool and all would be well in moving me from 1204 to 1404; i would not have to reinstall everything from scratch. but no. it throws this error: [quote]
Could not calculate the upgrade
An unresolvable problem occurred while calculating the upgrade.
This can be caused by: * Upgrading to a pre-release version of Ubuntu * Running the current pre-release version of Ubuntu * Unofficial software packages not provided by Ubuntu
[/quote]
looking in /var/log/dist-upgrade, i find this error:
[quote
ERROR Dist-upgrade failed: 'The package 'kubuntu-desktop-trinity' is marked for removal but it is in the removal blacklist.'
[/quote]
for some reason i must have added it to that blacklist, but truth be known i do not remember having done so or even the existence of such a blacklist, never mind how to add or delete something to or from it.
so, am wondering if there is a way around this that wouldn't (as it appears would happen here anyway) nuke my TDE install.
am i missing something obvious? do i want to d/l and install a TDE image and, if so, can i do an upgrade (rather than wipe and reinstall) from that?
thanks in advance
On Thursday 27 of July 2017 00:12:42 dep wrote:
greetings . . .
i've about concluded that i absolutely must upgrade my linux/tde install. i'm currently running 14.04 atop ubuntu 1204-LTS, which is at its end. hypothetically i should be able to do use ubuntu's system upgrade tool and all would be well in moving me from 1204 to 1404; i would not have to reinstall everything from scratch. but no. it throws this error: [quote]
Could not calculate the upgrade
An unresolvable problem occurred while calculating the upgrade.
This can be caused by:
- Upgrading to a pre-release version of Ubuntu
- Running the current pre-release version of Ubuntu
- Unofficial software packages not provided by Ubuntu
[/quote]
looking in /var/log/dist-upgrade, i find this error:
[quote
ERROR Dist-upgrade failed: 'The package 'kubuntu-desktop-trinity' is marked for removal but it is in the removal blacklist.'
[/quote]
for some reason i must have added it to that blacklist, but truth be known i do not remember having done so or even the existence of such a blacklist, never mind how to add or delete something to or from it.
so, am wondering if there is a way around this that wouldn't (as it appears would happen here anyway) nuke my TDE install.
am i missing something obvious? do i want to d/l and install a TDE image and, if so, can i do an upgrade (rather than wipe and reinstall) from that?
thanks in advance
Hi dep,
I always strictly avoided the Ubuntu tool because one of the steps it performs is to disable all external apt sources. But this step is a very good reason for causing conflicts during the dist-upgrade.
Instead, I use the classic Debian way == change the distribution name in all apt sources lists and then the common procedure:
apt-get udpate apt-get upgrade apt-get clean apt-get dist-upgrade apt-get clean apt-get autoremove
Cheers
said Slávek Banko:
| I always strictly avoided the Ubuntu tool because one of the steps it | performs is to disable all external apt sources. But this step is a very | good reason for causing conflicts during the dist-upgrade. | | Instead, I use the classic Debian way == change the distribution name in | all apt sources lists and then the common procedure: | | apt-get udpate | apt-get upgrade | apt-get clean | apt-get dist-upgrade | apt-get clean | apt-get autoremove
thanks very much -- that's the approach i'll take.
while i'm here -- there was talk that there was something wrong with 16.04 and that 14.04 was preferable. as my current situation demonstrates, i'm not a big fan of upgrading distributions, and going only to 14.04 means i get to do this all over again in two years. so -- have the issues with 16.04 been ironed out, or is it still to be avoided?
thanks again.
dep composed on 2017-07-26 19:47 (UTC-0400):
while i'm here -- there was talk that there was something wrong with 16.04 and that 14.04 was preferable. as my current situation demonstrates, i'm not a big fan of upgrading distributions, and going only to 14.04 means i get to do this all over again in two years. so -- have the issues with 16.04 been ironed out, or is it still to be avoided?
Are you sure the problem with 16.04 wasn't about KDE users upgrading from a mature KDE4 to a buggy Plasma 5 rather than 14.04LTS itself?
What does Ubuntu offer a TDE user over the Debian base on which Ubuntu is based anyway?
Is going straight from 12.04 to 16.04 even supported? To keep trouble to a minimum or nil probably requires going to 14.04 first.
said Felix Miata: | dep composed on 2017-07-26 19:47 (UTC-0400): | > while i'm here -- there was talk that there was something wrong with | > 16.04 and that 14.04 was preferable. as my current situation | > demonstrates, i'm not a big fan of upgrading distributions, and going | > only to 14.04 means i get to do this all over again in two years. so | > -- have the issues with 16.04 been ironed out, or is it still to be | > avoided? | | Are you sure the problem with 16.04 wasn't about KDE users upgrading | from a mature KDE4 to a buggy Plasma 5 rather than 14.04LTS itself?
no, i'm not. if that is an issue that stops the show, then i'll do 14.04LTS and hope for something happier by 18.04LTS.
| What does Ubuntu offer a TDE user over the Debian base on which Ubuntu | is based anyway?
in my case, the fact that i'm using it, and unless i'm much mistaken (a distinct possibility, maybe a probability), changing sources to debian and giving it the dist-upgrade command would produce surprises of a kind i'm hoping to avoid.
| Is going straight from 12.04 to 16.04 even supported? To keep trouble to | a minimum or nil probably requires going to 14.04 first.
this is what i'm trying to find out, from someone more familiar with it than i am -- i used to keep current on all this stuff but simply lack the time for it anymore. hence discovering i've reached the point where my 12.04LTS has expired and i need to tend to it. (i am certain that i've never gone 5 years without upgrading my OS anymore -- i remember covering the rollout of new versions of OS/2 in new york so as to get the new release earliest, and going from office to office in armonk until i found someone with a copy of 2.0 when the initial all-IBM release came. then, we *had* to keep backups of everything because there were several issues the lone cure to which was the dreaded rf/ri -- reformat, reinstall. which i am here kinda hoping to avoid.)
On Thursday 27 of July 2017 02:26:57 dep wrote:
| What does Ubuntu offer a TDE user over the Debian base on which | Ubuntu is based anyway?
in my case, the fact that i'm using it, and unless i'm much mistaken (a distinct possibility, maybe a probability), changing sources to debian and giving it the dist-upgrade command would produce surprises of a kind i'm hoping to avoid.
I tested the upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 to Debian 7.x (Wheezy) => it was complicated and the result was not good. Likewise, upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 to Debian 8.x (Jessie) => problems were less, but the result was also not good. There were still some Ubuntu configuration artefacts that caused problems.
said Slávek Banko: | On Thursday 27 of July 2017 02:26:57 dep wrote: | > | What does Ubuntu offer a TDE user over the Debian base on which | > | Ubuntu is based anyway? | > | > in my case, the fact that i'm using it, and unless i'm much mistaken | > (a distinct possibility, maybe a probability), changing sources to | > debian and giving it the dist-upgrade command would produce surprises | > of a kind i'm hoping to avoid. | | I tested the upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 to Debian 7.x (Wheezy) => it was | complicated and the result was not good. Likewise, upgrade from Ubuntu | 12.04 to Debian 8.x (Jessie) => problems were less, but the result was | also not good. There were still some Ubuntu configuration artefacts that | caused problems.
Being fundamentally lazy, that's reason enough for me to stick with Ubuntu, at least for now.
Many thanks.
Slávek Banko composed on 2017-07-27 03:18 (UTC+0200):
I tested the upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 to Debian 7.x (Wheezy) => it was complicated and the result was not good. Likewise, upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 to Debian 8.x (Jessie) => problems were less, but the result was also not good. There were still some Ubuntu configuration artefacts that caused problems.
I would never have tried or suggested either, because of a fundamental difference to Debian, Ubuntu's upstart init system in 12.04, which remained until 15.04.
On Thursday 27 of July 2017 02:05:07 Felix Miata wrote:
dep composed on 2017-07-26 19:47 (UTC-0400):
while i'm here -- there was talk that there was something wrong with 16.04 and that 14.04 was preferable. as my current situation demonstrates, i'm not a big fan of upgrading distributions, and going only to 14.04 means i get to do this all over again in two years. so -- have the issues with 16.04 been ironed out, or is it still to be avoided?
Are you sure the problem with 16.04 wasn't about KDE users upgrading from a mature KDE4 to a buggy Plasma 5 rather than 14.04LTS itself?
What does Ubuntu offer a TDE user over the Debian base on which Ubuntu is based anyway?
Is going straight from 12.04 to 16.04 even supported? To keep trouble to a minimum or nil probably requires going to 14.04 first.
On my test machine, I have encountered substantial problems when updating 14.04 => 16.04. The network was not running, NIS was not working ... it was not good. The only function I've found is to update through all the versions in between 14.04 => 14.10 => 15.04 => 15.10 => 16.04.
It was terrible, but otherwise I did not have a properly functioning system. Therefore I definitely do not recommend updating from 12.04 directly to 16.04.
said Slávek Banko: | On Thursday 27 of July 2017 02:05:07 Felix Miata wrote: | > dep composed on 2017-07-26 19:47 (UTC-0400): | > > while i'm here -- there was talk that there was something wrong with | > > 16.04 and that 14.04 was preferable. as my current situation | > > demonstrates, i'm not a big fan of upgrading distributions, and | > > going only to 14.04 means i get to do this all over again in two | > > years. so -- have the issues with 16.04 been ironed out, or is it | > > still to be avoided? | > | > Are you sure the problem with 16.04 wasn't about KDE users upgrading | > from a mature KDE4 to a buggy Plasma 5 rather than 14.04LTS itself? | > | > What does Ubuntu offer a TDE user over the Debian base on which Ubuntu | > is based anyway? | > | > Is going straight from 12.04 to 16.04 even supported? To keep trouble | > to a minimum or nil probably requires going to 14.04 first. | | On my test machine, I have encountered substantial problems when | updating 14.04 => 16.04. The network was not running, NIS was not | working ... it was not good. The only function I've found is to update | through all the versions in between 14.04 => 14.10 => 15.04 => 15.10 => | 16.04. | | It was terrible, but otherwise I did not have a properly functioning | system. Therefore I definitely do not recommend updating from 12.04 | directly to 16.04.
Thanks very much. 14.04 it is, then!
On Wednesday 26 July 2017 20:05:07 Felix Miata wrote:
dep composed on 2017-07-26 19:47 (UTC-0400):
while i'm here -- there was talk that there was something wrong with 16.04 and that 14.04 was preferable. as my current situation demonstrates, i'm not a big fan of upgrading distributions, and going only to 14.04 means i get to do this all over again in two years. so -- have the issues with 16.04 been ironed out, or is it still to be avoided?
Are you sure the problem with 16.04 wasn't about KDE users upgrading from a mature KDE4 to a buggy Plasma 5 rather than 14.04LTS itself?
A MATURE kde4? Thats an oxymoron from where I sit, and fully explains why I've been running TDE for a couple years now.
What does Ubuntu offer a TDE user over the Debian base on which Ubuntu is based anyway?
Is going straight from 12.04 to 16.04 even supported? To keep trouble to a minimum or nil probably requires going to 14.04 first.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
Gene Heskett composed on 2017-07-26 20:42 (UTC-0400):
Felix Miata wrote:
Are you sure the problem with 16.04 wasn't about KDE users upgrading from a mature KDE4 to a buggy Plasma 5 rather than 14.04LTS itself?
A MATURE kde4? Thats an oxymoron from where I sit, and fully explains why I've been running TDE for a couple years now.
Sure, relative to each other. 14.04 had 4.11, 16.04 5.5. Neither has or had anything to do with TDE basides ancient ancestry. Both 4 and 5 were and are programmer playtoys made for the adventurous, not for people who need to get work done.
said Slávek Banko:
| I always strictly avoided the Ubuntu tool because one of the steps it | performs is to disable all external apt sources. But this step is a very | good reason for causing conflicts during the dist-upgrade. | | Instead, I use the classic Debian way == change the distribution name in | all apt sources lists and then the common procedure: | | apt-get udpate | apt-get upgrade | apt-get clean | apt-get dist-upgrade | apt-get clean | apt-get autoremove
well, i'm about ready to push the button on this and before doing so (in hope of avoiding irrational and panicked "what did i do wrong" posts to the list!) i thought i'd post the contents of my /etc/apt/sources.list file, in case i'm missing something obvious here it is:
# See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty main restricted deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty main restricted
## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates main restricted deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates main restricted
## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty universe deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty universe deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates universe deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates universe
## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty multiverse deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty multiverse deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates multiverse deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates multiverse
## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-backports main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security main restricted deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security main restricted deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security universe deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security universe deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security multiverse deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security multiverse
## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu trusty partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu trusty partner
## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. deb http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty main deb-src http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty main
## Trinity Desktop Environment deb http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/ubuntu trusty main deb-src http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/ubuntu trusty main deb http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0/ubunt... trusty main deb-src http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0/ubunt... trusty main
## DVD styler deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/dvdstyler-maintainers/ppa/ubuntu trusty main deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/dvdstyler-maintainers/ppa/ubuntu trusty main deb http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian trusty contrib deb-src http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian trusty contrib
have i anything here obviously wrong?
thanks in advance to anyone who looks it over.
On Sunday 30 of July 2017 16:32:16 dep wrote:
said Slávek Banko: | I always strictly avoided the Ubuntu tool because one of the steps it | performs is to disable all external apt sources. But this step is a very | good reason for causing conflicts during the dist-upgrade. | | Instead, I use the classic Debian way == change the distribution name in | all apt sources lists and then the common procedure: | | apt-get udpate | apt-get upgrade | apt-get clean | apt-get dist-upgrade | apt-get clean | apt-get autoremove
well, i'm about ready to push the button on this and before doing so (in hope of avoiding irrational and panicked "what did i do wrong" posts to the list!) i thought i'd post the contents of my /etc/apt/sources.list file, in case i'm missing something obvious here it is:
# See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty main restricted deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty main restricted
## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates main restricted deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates main restricted
## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty universe deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty universe deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates universe deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates universe
## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty multiverse deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty multiverse deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates multiverse deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates multiverse
## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb-src http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ trusty-backports main restricted universe multiverse
deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security main restricted deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security main restricted deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security universe deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security universe deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security multiverse deb-src http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty-security multiverse
## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu trusty partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu trusty partner
## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. deb http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty main deb-src http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu trusty main
## Trinity Desktop Environment deb http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/ubuntu trusty main deb-src http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-r14.0.0/ubuntu trusty main deb http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0/ubun tu trusty main deb-src http://mirror.ppa.trinitydesktop.org/trinity/trinity-builddeps-r14.0.0/ubun tu trusty main
## DVD styler deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/dvdstyler-maintainers/ppa/ubuntu trusty main deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/dvdstyler-maintainers/ppa/ubuntu trusty main deb http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian trusty contrib deb-src http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/debian trusty contrib
have i anything here obviously wrong?
thanks in advance to anyone who looks it over.
At first glance it seems to be all right.
Cheers
said Slávek Banko:
| At first glance it seems to be all right.
many thanks. one thing i wondered about, i realized after i sent the original note, was the trinity repository to which it points. i copied it from the trinity site, and it points to 14.0.0. the current release is, what, 14.04, right? should i change that or will it automagically give me the latest?
thanks again.
On Sunday 30 of July 2017 19:15:33 dep wrote:
said Slávek Banko: | At first glance it seems to be all right.
many thanks. one thing i wondered about, i realized after i sent the original note, was the trinity repository to which it points. i copied it from the trinity site, and it points to 14.0.0. the current release is, what, 14.04, right? should i change that or will it automagically give me the latest?
thanks again.
Yes, although the repositories are named 14.0.0, they are actually 14.0.x == now you get 14.0.4.
said Slávek Banko: | On Sunday 30 of July 2017 19:15:33 dep wrote: | > said Slávek Banko: | > | At first glance it seems to be all right. | > | > many thanks. one thing i wondered about, i realized after i sent the | > original note, was the trinity repository to which it points. i copied | > it from the trinity site, and it points to 14.0.0. the current release | > is, what, 14.04, right? should i change that or will it automagically | > give me the latest? | > | > thanks again. | | Yes, although the repositories are named 14.0.0, they are actually | 14.0.x == now you get 14.0.4.
Thank you.
-
deloptes -
dep -
Felix Miata -
Gene Heskett -
Slávek Banko