(solved) LinuxLite 2.4 64bit Thinks it's 2.2 after update - Won't boot

[baranbaran]

this version is preety nice to work on

[davidoser]

Thanks Rob
This is, of course, not of great importance. But I have installed and looked at Grub-Customizer, as you suggested.
I'm going to start a new thread, however, as I seem to have hijacked my own thread here, and my initial problem is solved...
David

[N4RPS]

Hello!

It now saying 'Ubuntu' could be a result of that 'dist-upgrade' command. Never fear, though - GRUB Customizer lets you change it from 'Ubuntu' to say whatever you want it to say...

73 DE N4RPS
Rob

[davidoser]

Thanks Jerry and Big Thanks to all involved for Linux Lite 2.4.
The problem of self-identification as 2.2 rather than 2.4 is solved thanks to Jerry's input. And it now, on my legacy BIOS machine, it boots straight from my (full installation) usb stick.
Interestingly enough, and sorry it's probably off topic - I found that I can now boot into Linux Lite from my ex-Windows 8.x UEFI machine.
How? On my legacy BIOS machine, from Synaptic - Custom Filters - Missing Recommends, I found and installed grub-efi.
Having done that, I found it still wouldn't boot in my UEFI machine directly-from-the-usb, no-surprise. But I left the usb stick in when running Ubuntu 14.10 on that machine and 'sudo update-grub' did the trick of placing 'Linux Lite 2.4' on the existing grub menu on that machine's HD. From which it does, now, boot successfully.
The only slight catch is that Linux Lite now calls itself 'Ubuntu' when booting directly from the usb on my legacy BIOS machine. But I suppose you can't have everything... 
David

[Jerry]

Bit of an oversight on the 64bit version of 2.4
If you install 64bit, lsb-release will show it as 2.2 (my bad)
Running the upgrade tool on 2.4 after a fresh install (funny, I know) should correct any mis-reporting

Menu, Settings, Lite Upgrade.

[davidoser]

Yup Coatie. Something wrong with the 64 bit version. But at least I solved my problem.
After full installation and first boot I ran
sudo apt-get update.. then
sudo apt-get upgrade ... then
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

All sorts of stuff happened/downloaded/installed between the three.
Then just for luck I ran sudo grub-update

The shut down and rebooted.
It rebooted fine - except grub still calls it 2.2 and so does the System Information.

So I have a working version of a 64 bit Linux Lite. But I have no idea whether or not it is truly version 2.4

Bah!

Still greatfull and all that. After all - it is free and a lot of hard work put in on a voluntary basis by the developers. Which I appreciate cos it's a nice distro.

However, until this gets sorted out - I'm going to stick with Ubuntu for my main machine. Not least because it is UEFI and it seems a little odd that with so many new machines being UEFI booting the LL developers have not yet got to grips with this. Maybe version 2.5?

I think I won't call this 'solved' yet because I have no idea what version of LL I'm actually running from my usb stick.

Edit: I now see misko-2083 is on the case and has queried Jerry.

Good luck guys.

All the best...

[anon222]

Booted 64 bit live DVD LL 2.4 in a VM and I can confirm that it's reporting as LL 2.2.
Checked md5sum of the iso file and is ok.
But when checked llver

Code: [Select]

cat /etc/llver
Linux Lite 2.2
Jerry?

[Coastie]

... downloaded and booted live DVD for LL 2.4 - 64. System Profiler on live DVD said it was 2.2.  Looking for changes from 2.0,  found Lite Upgrade and it offered to upgrade to 2.4. This may just be normal way to get 2.4. 


Repeated same process with 2.4 - 32 bit and it shows it already is 2.4 with no update or upgrade needed.

[davidoser]

... Do I need to install afresh (avoiding updates for a while) or is there something a not especially linux-knowledgeable guy can do...?

I am far from being an expert but I just downloaded and booted live DVD for LL 2.4 - 64. System Profiler on live DVD said it was 2.2.  Looking for changes from 2.0,  found Lite Upgrade and it offered to upgrade to 2.4. This may just be normal way to get 2.4. 

Believe me Coastie - it's not 'normal' This is what I call a bug.

[davidoser]

Yup.
I wasn't being stupid. Well, anyway - not that stupid. But I have repeated the procedures very carefully, just in case.
I downloaded LL 2.4-64 bit (what it 'said on the tin') and installed it as a live version onto a freshly formatted usb (Fat32, since you ask).
I booted directly from that usb (not on my uefi laptop, natch - and that's a whole nother story guys) on  my old fashioned BIOS machine (legacy?). All fine.
Then I looked at the System Information in the alleged Linux Lite 2.4-64bit live - and waddya know?... it showed the distribution labelled as 2.2
So, still via this live version I followed the link in the installation application to the 'release notes' - and my browser took me straight to release notes to 2.4.
But there was nothing in them indicating it would load as 2.2, that you'd have to do a double-witch-hex after install and before updating it, etc, etc, yadda, yadda.
This folks is what I call a bug(geration!)
No point in installing then. Because after the first time I successfully boot from the full installation (which it will do, 'cos it did last time) I will want to update it. And after I have updated it... It won't boot. Because Grub will be looking for the wrong thing. And since it won't boot there will be nothing I can do about it from within it, if you see what I mean.
Sigh...

[Coastie]

... Do I need to install afresh (avoiding updates for a while) or is there something a not especially linux-knowledgeable guy can do...?

I am far from being an expert but I just downloaded and booted live DVD for LL 2.4 - 64. System Profiler on live DVD said it was 2.2.  Looking for changes from 2.0,  found Lite Upgrade and it offered to upgrade to 2.4. This may just be normal way to get 2.4. 

[rokytnji]

Stupid me. I have a suspicion I reinstalled my 2.2 version again by mistake - then updated it (but surely it should have booted correctly - even so?). Will report back again if 2.4 does not boot....
Sorry!
Dave

OK.

[rokytnji]

So I downloaded and installed it.

How? Was a md5sum check done 1st?

Actually a full install into a 32g USB stick from the live version, using 'something else' - separate partitions for boot, root, home, etc.

what file system was used on the pendrive install on the different partitions when you went with a conventional install?

I then went to 'install updates' and did so. No errors reported. Unfortunately I then shut down and attempted to reboot. But Grub now showed v2.2. And, of course, it won't boot.

Hard to tell what happened from here. If me. I'd plug the usb drive in my other linux laptop.
Open my pendrive in gparted and look at it in case it is covered in writes (all yellow, no white)
Then unmount it in gparted with right click.
Then run a check using right click again in gparted.

Let it do the fsck on my pendrive. Then try to boot it again.
It sounds like you might have corrupted the file system with a improper unmount of the pendrive.

[davidoser]

Stupid me. I have a suspicion I reinstalled my 2.2 version again by mistake - then updated it (but surely it should have booted correctly - even so?). Will report back again if 2.4 does not boot....
Sorry!
Dave

[davidoser]

Hum
Just as it says in the Subject.
I was delighted with v2.2 but thought a fresh install of 2.4 (64 bit) might delight me even more. So I downloaded and installed it. Actually a full install into a 32g USB stick from the live version, using 'something else' - separate partitions for boot, root, home, etc.
It then booted just fine, calling itself 2.4 on the boot loader.
I then went to 'install updates' and did so. No errors reported. Unfortunately I then shut down and attempted to reboot. But Grub now showed v2.2. And, of course, it won't boot.
Now, folks, is it just me - or did one of the alleged updates bork the Grub file? Or something?
Do I need to install afresh (avoiding updates for a while) or is there something a not especially linux-knowledgeable guy can do...?