(bug ?) the kernel symlinks don't update

[Member melodie]

Hello,

I can’t see how to get the /initrd.img and /vmlinuz to point automatically to new installed kernels. However, what I have noticed, while doing a serious STFW about this issue, is that “update-grub” calls grub-mkconfig, and invoking it fails because the PATH does not include /usr/sbin !

$ cd /usr/sbin/
$ cat update-grub
#!/bin/sh
set -e
exec grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg “$@”
$

$ echo $PATH
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games
$

# echo $PATH
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games
#

I have changed the update-grub script from
exec grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg "$@"

to

exec /usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg "$@"

which has allowed me to invoke grub-update successfully (using /usr/sbin/grub-update directly to invoke it), so at reboot Grub offered to boot on the last kernel installed.

However this does not solve it all, and is not perhaps the best way to deal with this issue.

What can be done ?

thanks.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

antiX does include /usr/sbin!

echo $PATH
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games

Don’t know what you did to your respin not to invoke it.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by anticapitalista.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

my guess toward what is at play:

debian10 merged /usr/sbin (and /usr/bin) (ref: https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge and https://lwn.net/Articles/773342/ )

…and melodie has installed usrmerge -affected packages from debian10 repository.

[Member melodie]

Helpful

Up

0

::

@anticapitalista and @skidoo, thanks. I’ll add the missing paths to /etc/environment then ( https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/324969/can-i-set-add-something-to-path-system-wide-for-all-users-which-has-lowest-pre ) . This is correct, right?

[Member melodie]

Helpful

Up

0

::

anticapitalista wrote:

antiX does include /usr/sbin!

echo $PATH
/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games:/sbin:/usr/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games

Hello anticapitalista,

how come you get two times ‘/usr/local/bin’ in the output of your “echo” ? And no ‘/usr/local/sbin’ ?

• This reply was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by melodie.

[Anonymous]

Helpful

Up

0

::

melodie, after reading the usrmerge (perl script) I see that it doesn’t mess with the path definitions.
The content of /usr/sbin/update-grub (identical to shown in post#1) is same in antiX 17 and 19.
$ dpkg-query -S /usr/sbin/update-grub
FWIW, I didn’t find any usermerge -related patches for its buster package https://sources.debian.org/patches/grub2/2.02+dfsg1-20/

on antiX19 I haven’t been able to reproduce the “echo $PATH” results reported in post #1.
For sudo and root, the /games directories are not (and definitely should not be) listed in the path.
Tracking down how that happened (how games wound up listed) might lead you to discover how the /usr/sbin declaration got chopped from your path definition.

[Member stevesr0]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Running Sid installed at time of antiX-19.

Today,an update of dpkg produced the following warning:

Preparing to unpack …/archives/dpkg_1.21.3_amd64.deb …
Unpacking dpkg (1.21.3) over (1.21.2) …
Setting up dpkg (1.21.3) …
[1mdpkg[0m: [1;33mwarning[0m: This system uses merged-usr-via-aliased-dirs, going behind dpkg’s
[1mdpkg[0m: [1;33mwarning[0m: back, breaking its core assumptions. This can cause silent file
[1mdpkg[0m: [1;33mwarning[0m: overwrites and disappearances, and its general tools misbehavior.
[1mdpkg[0m: [1;33mwarning[0m: See <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#broken-usrmerge&gt;.

I don’t have usrmerge installed.

But, my path (and sudo path) include /usr/sbin and both /usr/games and /usr/local/games.

update-grub runs without error message.

So, I am perplexed. Is there a reason to install usrmerge if things seem to be working, or wait and install if I actually have a problem that seems to relate to aliased directories?

Is there a standard list of aliased directories?

Is usrmerge installed by default on base and full installs of antiX now?

Appreciate any comments.

Thanks.

stevesr0

[Member sybok]

Helpful

Up

0

::

I know there was a discussion on the forum about finding list of installed packages in antiX (ISOs?) but I could not find it.

Off-topic comment:
I tested usrmerge on my antiX-19* (testing) and it failed to run/set-up correctly; there is a known bug I saw in mentioned in Ubuntu.
Since I was unable/unaware-of-how to fix it, it eventually messed up my system and I decided to reinstall.

[Member stevesr0]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Hi sybok,

Thanks for comment.

I understand that the usrmerge package is to be run once by using one apt command to install it and purge it.

I don’t plan to install it at this time.

I think the warning is because the usrmerge package is available in the repositories. Apparently, usrmerge is supposesed to symlink /bin, /lib and /sbin to /usr/bin, /usr/lib and /usr/sbin.

In my system without usrmerge (unless it was automatically used and purged as noted above), these symlinks exist.

So, I have to question if usrmerge is needed or if the current installs of antiX automagically make these symlinks correctly.

Hopefully, someone who knows will respond.

stevesr0

(Note to moderator – my posts are questioning whether usrmerge is actually doing sometehing useful, what that is and how it is supposed to be used. Maybe these posts could be split into a posting with the title “Is usrmerge needed?”.)

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

My sid upgrade showed no issues and dpkg is version 1.21.4 (not 1.21.3).

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

BTW a fresh antiX-21 iso (full, base, core and net), uses the *new* way – no need for usrmerge.
Same with the antiX-21 sid isos.

If upgrading from antiX-19 (or earlier) to antiX-21, DO NOT use usrmerge. It will break your install.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Moderator Brian Masinick]

Helpful

Up

0

::

anticapitalista wrote:

BTW a fresh antiX-21 iso (full, base, core and net), uses the *new* way – no need for usrmerge.
Same with the antiX-21 sid isos.

If upgrading from antiX-19 (or earlier) to antiX-21, DO NOT use usrmerge. It will break your install.

GOOD tip!

I was running antiX 21 on a system that is probably more than ten years old, but the software is something I’ve installed in the past couple of months. I dusted off the system that was in the corner, plugged it in, booted it up, updated the software and it ran well – maybe not as FAST as this current generation laptop, which is currently using EndeavourOS, but once logged in and actually doing stuff on the Web, you’d barely notice the difference; only time I could tell was when I’d invoke a new image; yeah, then the old computer was slower, but not at all unusable on antiX 21; it was a pleasant experience!

--
Brian Masinick

[Member stevesr0]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Thanks anticapitalista.

I had a dpkg update yesterday to version 1.21.3 and ANOTHER one today to 1.21.4.

I will certainly NOT install usrmerge on this system.

Is there any need to use usrmerge if one is going to do a fresh install of antiX-19 at this time?

stevesr0

P.S. Might it be worthwhile to post a warning about usrmerge for people running antiX-19, antiX-21 and the testing and Sid versions, since that package is still in the debian repos.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Users of antiX (any version or flavour) should just forget about usrmerge.
It is not installed by default on any version.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Author]

Posts