You are Here:
Install Updates Gimp Error - see Security & Bug Fixes Section Sticky



Holding back the base-files package

Author (Read 4781 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Holding back the base-files package
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:47:45 PM »
 

Jerry

  • Linux Lite Creator
  • Administrator
  • Platinum Level Poster
  • *****
  • 7081
    Posts
  • Country: nz
  • Reputation: 663
  • Linux Lite Member
    • Linux Lite OS

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: Intel Xeon Dual CPU's E5645 2.4GHz 12 Cores

  • MEMORY: 16Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: nVidia GeForce GTX 960
It seems some people are getting confused whilst upgrading, when faced with the following options:

Code: [Select]
Configuration file '/etc/issue'
 ==> Modified (by you or by a script) since installation.
 ==> Package distributor has shipped an updated version.
   What would you like to do about it ?  Your options are:
    Y or I  : install the package maintainer's version
    N or O  : keep your currently-installed version
      D     : show the differences between the versions
      Z     : start a shell to examine the situation
 The default action is to keep your current version.
*** issue (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ?

Configuration file '/etc/lsb-release'
 ==> Modified (by you or by a script) since installation.
 ==> Package distributor has shipped an updated version.
   What would you like to do about it ?  Your options are:
    Y or I  : install the package maintainer's version
    N or O  : keep your currently-installed version
      D     : show the differences between the versions
      Z     : start a shell to examine the situation
 The default action is to keep your current version.
*** lsb-release (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ?

This can be quite destructive as it effects the way your computer boots.
In the next version of Linux Lite I'm looking at holding back this package, in the meantime to do this open a terminal:

Code: [Select]
sudo apt-mark hold base-files
 


Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2014, 12:06:56 AM »
 

Coastie

  • PayPal Supporter
  • Gold Level Poster
  • *****
  • 656
    Posts
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 51
  • Linux Lite User

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: AMD A10-6700 (ASUS M32)

  • MEMORY: 12Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: ADM Radeon HD (integrated)
As one of the ones who got confused, I followed your instruction and appreciate you providing this solutions. I was helped to undo my mistake and haven't had any problems.  I might have gotten confused again when confronted with those options.  :-[


Left Mac OS X for Linux in Jan 2014
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2014, 05:22:10 AM »
 

Colin23erk

  • Forum Regular
  • ***
  • 212
    Posts
  • Country: gb
  • Reputation: 13
  • Linux Lite Member

  • Linux Lite: 2.6 32bit

  • MEMORY: 256mb
Hi
As a non-tech user I do not have the knowledge to make an informed choice.  I assumed that because the updated package was  included it was of benefit and installed  it and fortunately had no problems .

Reading what you advised should I have opted for the default option and should I use your code to remove it .

My next question is why was it released in a general upgrade package if it requires  the general user to make an informed choice.  I assume by your statement  "In the next version of Linux Lite I'm looking at holding back this package" you do not think it should be included. 

Are you able to advise the " Techies " who make these decisions that you are trying to make Linux suitable for ordinary users .

Colin
I Learn something new Every Day !
An "example" is worth a 1000 words
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2014, 05:40:18 AM »
 

Jerry

  • Linux Lite Creator
  • Administrator
  • Platinum Level Poster
  • *****
  • 7081
    Posts
  • Country: nz
  • Reputation: 663
  • Linux Lite Member
    • Linux Lite OS

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: Intel Xeon Dual CPU's E5645 2.4GHz 12 Cores

  • MEMORY: 16Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: nVidia GeForce GTX 960
Quote from: Colin23erk
Reading what you advised should I have opted for the default option and should I use your code to remove it.

The default option is the default option for a reason, you don't have to be a 'tech head' to understand a recommendation. You can use the code now if you like to hold that package back, so you're not faced with this again.

Quote from: Colin23erk
Are you able to advise the " Techies " who make these decisions that you are trying to make Linux suitable for ordinary users .

I don't have any sway over the people that make that package, thats why I'm offering to hold it back. From what I can tell, the package is fairly innocuous. Cheers.
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2014, 06:59:27 AM »
 

robert

  • New to Forums
  • *
  • 45
    Posts
  • Country: gb
  • Reputation: 5
  • Linux Lite Member

  • MEMORY: 2Gb
I was also caught out with this but managed to work out the fix by myself  :D (pat on the back for me).

Holding it back makes sense as it would definitely confuse people, in my opinion anyway.
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2014, 08:07:15 AM »
 

Colin23erk

  • Forum Regular
  • ***
  • 212
    Posts
  • Country: gb
  • Reputation: 13
  • Linux Lite Member

  • Linux Lite: 2.6 32bit

  • MEMORY: 256mb
Hi Valtam

A little harsh !

Quote
The default option is the default option for a reason, you don't have to be a 'tech head' to understand a recommendation

To you it may be as Clear as Day but as I am obviously a bit thick because I read it different .

If they provide something they expect it to be updated .

By asking me to decide they give me the option not to .

My understanding of a "Default" option is -- if I do nothing  that is the option that will automatically provided .

 It is not a recommendation of what I should do..

The simplest and least confusing is to have not provided it in the first place ---  QED
I Learn something new Every Day !
An "example" is worth a 1000 words
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2014, 08:12:04 AM »
 

Jerry

  • Linux Lite Creator
  • Administrator
  • Platinum Level Poster
  • *****
  • 7081
    Posts
  • Country: nz
  • Reputation: 663
  • Linux Lite Member
    • Linux Lite OS

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: Intel Xeon Dual CPU's E5645 2.4GHz 12 Cores

  • MEMORY: 16Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: nVidia GeForce GTX 960
I was also caught out with this but managed to work out the fix by myself  :D (pat on the back for me).

Holding it back makes sense as it would definitely confuse people, in my opinion anyway.

Cheers Robert :)
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2014, 08:20:36 AM »
 

Jerry

  • Linux Lite Creator
  • Administrator
  • Platinum Level Poster
  • *****
  • 7081
    Posts
  • Country: nz
  • Reputation: 663
  • Linux Lite Member
    • Linux Lite OS

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: Intel Xeon Dual CPU's E5645 2.4GHz 12 Cores

  • MEMORY: 16Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: nVidia GeForce GTX 960
Hi Valtam

A little harsh !

Not meant to be harsh good sir ;) I recognize that people interpret the same information differently. With that in mind, you are not 'thick' and no one here thinks that you are. This thread simply explains that LL has it's users best interests at heart and recognizes all levels of understanding, and works towards making things easier for folks.
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2014, 11:03:39 AM »
 

gold_finger

  • Documentation Writer
  • Platinum Level Poster
  • *****
  • 1095
    Posts
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 323
  • Linux Lite Member

  • Linux Lite: 3.2 64bit

  • CPU: Intel Core2 Duo E7500 3.0GHz

  • MEMORY: 4Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: Intel 4 Series Integrated Graphics
To you it may be as Clear as Day but as I am obviously a bit thick because I read it different .

If they provide something they expect it to be updated .

@ Colin23erk,

I have to admit to thinking very same way during first couple of years of Linux for me.  "If they've updated it, why should I not use it?"  So, I'd alternate -- clicking "No" sometimes, clicking "Yes" other times.  Nothing bad ever happened which ever choice I picked, so I never gave it much thought.

Over time, my thought process changed to:  "Okay, they updated the package.  Now they want to know if I want to use a new, generic configuration file for it, or keep the one I have?"  When looked at that way, it makes more sense to keep the config file you have.  So, I've generally picked "No" during last couple of years -- but I still never gave it a whole lot of thought.

During last few days of posts expressing confusion over this I've tried looking up why selecting "Yes" to this would pose any problem and I can't seem to come to any satisfactory (for me) conclusion.  The only thing that seems to get changed if you go with the new, generic files (by clicking Yes) is the description line:  "Ubuntu" instead of "Linux Lite".

My first couple of years in Linux, I used Ubuntu -- so maybe that's why I never had a problem with either choice.  It just replace "Ubuntu" with another "Ubuntu".  But then I switched to Mint and I'm virtually certain that there were times when I clicked "Yes" to this, and I still had no problems.  (Have toyed with at least 10-15 other distros, similarly clicking "yes" and "no" on occations and don't recall having had any problems then either.)  I'm relatively new to LL -- only used sporadically for about 6 months, then switched to it as main distro when 2.0 was released a couple of months ago.  During that time, I'm virtually certain that I've never clicked "Yes" and always stayed with the already present config file; so I've not put myself in a position to maybe experience a problem.  Since Valtam says it might pose a problem, I'll continue clicking "No" -- but I still don't really understand how that minor change in description could cause an issue.  (I'm guessing it has to due with some customization made to grub which reads the file(s) during startup.)

So, Colin23erk, don't feel so bad.  I'm not a newbie and I'm still confused by this!  ???
Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 01:44:47 PM by gold_finger
Try Linux Beginner Search Engine for answers to Linux questions.
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #9 on: July 29, 2014, 12:54:03 PM »
 

Colin23erk

  • Forum Regular
  • ***
  • 212
    Posts
  • Country: gb
  • Reputation: 13
  • Linux Lite Member

  • Linux Lite: 2.6 32bit

  • MEMORY: 256mb
Thanks Valtam and gold_finger

Brings me back to a General annoyance with computer software that  I expressed to N4RPS a while ago

Quote
          What I need is a better way to solve problems and not to just get error codes or messages that mean nothing  and it is up to the user / administrator /technician  to spend hours/days to find out what actually went wrong so they can  sort it . With the vast amount of computing power in today's computers they should have self diagnostics built in .

 In my clockwork working days it was accepted to get a simple fail message because of the limits of the technology. The problem was often a failure to get an input because of an error that happened several steps ago..
           

As you have seen it before this looks like a Generic message that is generated to suggest there is a potential problem . What it is and how it effects us and how to fix it  , is for them to know and the recipients to puzzle out . There is not even a Web page link  to point us in the right direction.

In these days when numerically more OS's are installed in PC's its not helpful to have messages saying *In case of difficulty consult your administrator *
Until computers talk directly to their users and in a comprehensible way they will still be considered as the province of geeks or expensive professionals

Colin

I Learn something new Every Day !
An "example" is worth a 1000 words
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2014, 01:46:07 PM »
 

Coastie

  • PayPal Supporter
  • Gold Level Poster
  • *****
  • 656
    Posts
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 51
  • Linux Lite User

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: AMD A10-6700 (ASUS M32)

  • MEMORY: 12Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: ADM Radeon HD (integrated)

...  "Okay, they updated the package.  Now they want to know if I want to use a new, generic configuration file for it, or keep the one I have?"   ...

My confusion was that I thought "they" was Valtam so if that was what he recommended I would do it. Fortunately, he gave us what to enter into the terminal to avoid this confusion in the future.  8)


Left Mac OS X for Linux in Jan 2014
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2014, 10:55:34 PM »
 

Jerry

  • Linux Lite Creator
  • Administrator
  • Platinum Level Poster
  • *****
  • 7081
    Posts
  • Country: nz
  • Reputation: 663
  • Linux Lite Member
    • Linux Lite OS

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: Intel Xeon Dual CPU's E5645 2.4GHz 12 Cores

  • MEMORY: 16Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: nVidia GeForce GTX 960
I have been doing some more research on this and found another solution that for me is preferable to 'apt-mark hold'. For the brave, try the following:
Code: [Select]
sudo leafpad /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/local this will open a blank file, paste the following into it:
Code: [Select]
Dpkg::Options {   "--force-confdef";   "--force-confold"; } Save and close. When you run updates, the 2 prompts for 'lsb-release' and 'issue' are now automatically answered 'N' without any user interaction. Explanations: --force-confdef: ask dpkg to decide alone when it can and prompt otherwise. This is the default behavior of dpkg and this option is mainly useful in combination with --force-confold. --force-confold: do not modify the current configuration file, the new version is installed with a .dpkg-dist suffix. With this option alone, even configuration files that you have not modified are left untouched. You need to combine it with --force-confdef to let dpkg overwrite configuration files that you have not modified. Tested on a fresh install of LL 2.0
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2014, 12:15:25 AM »
 

Coastie

  • PayPal Supporter
  • Gold Level Poster
  • *****
  • 656
    Posts
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 51
  • Linux Lite User

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: AMD A10-6700 (ASUS M32)

  • MEMORY: 12Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: ADM Radeon HD (integrated)
... For the brave ...

That may work for the brave but not for the confused like me who do not understand Jerry's explanation.

Should I just continue go with the default (the capital Y or N) recommendation? ???
Last Edit: November 19, 2014, 09:45:56 AM by Coastie


Left Mac OS X for Linux in Jan 2014
 

Re: Holding back the base-files package
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2014, 02:17:09 AM »
 

sysdrum

  • Saying the wrong things at the right time.
  • Occasional Poster
  • **
  • 83
    Posts
  • Country: us
  • Reputation: 12
  • That's personal.

  • Linux Lite: 3.8 64bit

  • CPU: Intel Core i5-6400

  • MEMORY: 16Gb

  • VIDEO CARD: Nvidia 1050 Ti
As I work through the changes from Xubuntu vs LL I have found that due to changes in kernel level along with other issues; the only option is to say No as there are more changes under the hood that will break grub.

I understand Jerry (Valtam) is correct in holding back changes as the kernel is being changed on a low level on the (X)ubuntu upstream. As I am running 3.13.0-39 on xubuntu but even LL 2.2 beta is running 3.13.0-24

I personally avoid pushing any changes I do not control. But of course I also understand that there are large number of user who come from the closed world where patch Tuesdays are the only way to run things and of course even patches in that world break things just look at Directx or .Net things that are frameworks in the that world.

But I digress one must look at the concept here: New users need to be safe guarded from the chance of breakage. Advanced users need the flexibility to make changes and they stick. Plus sudo users need to own all the things to feel like it is their world after all.
So safety first flexibility second and Control third.
which follows the moto:
Simple to use, fast to run and free as in beer and speech.
That is my rant for the day.
 


Tags:
 


Install Updates Gimp Error - see Security & Bug Fixes Section Sticky