[SOLVED] elogind issue during antixcore64-19.1 installation

[Member mikey777]

See screenshot:
I got the following message during preliminary installation of antixcore 19.1 64-bit on a dual-core duo laptop,
last night & again this morning. See screenshot below about an “impossible situation” being created and “unmet dependencies”.

Should I just ignore this and just carry on with installation?

Also there seems to be an issue with the MX repositories today, as I was unable to get updates from it. Anyone
else experiencing it?

• This topic was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by mikey777.
• This topic was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by mikey777.
• This topic was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by mikey777.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_2020-03-27_13-29-58.png
   

▪ 32-bit antix19.4-core+LXDE installed on :
- (2011) Samsung NP-N145 Plus (JP04UK) – single-core CPU Intel Atom N455@1.66GHz, 2GB RAM, integrated graphics.
▪ 64-bit antix21-base+LXDE installed on:
- (2008) Asus X71Q (7SC002) – dual CPU Intel T3200@2.0GHz, 4GB RAM. Graphics: Intel Mobile 4 Series, integrated graphics
- (2007) Packard Bell Easynote MX37 (ALP-Ajax C3) – dual CPU Intel T2310@1.46GHz, 2GB RAM. Graphics: Silicon Integrated Systems.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Latest upgrades no longer need libpam-elogind-compat.
Also latest installer no longer has that option.

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

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Member mikey777]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Thanks for your reply anticapitalista.
I’m still a bit confused on two counts …

First, in view of what you said above, I used the 23rd December 2019 release of antiX-19.1_x64-core.iso (the latest installer I could find under Evowise on the antix website). However, I still get the [y/N] option for elogind, “recommended if installing a desktop environment”, during installation. Should I therefore answer ‘N’ to this elogind question ?

Second, # apt-get update & # apt-get install aren’t working as mxlinux.mirrors…, http://ftp.uk.debian…, security.debian.org… repos not working: e.g. says “invalid for another 4209d 12h 21min 27s”. Is this related
to the elogind issue ?

Our internet connection here appears secure, as it’s working for another distro.
Many thanks for your continued help & support

▪ 32-bit antix19.4-core+LXDE installed on :
- (2011) Samsung NP-N145 Plus (JP04UK) – single-core CPU Intel Atom N455@1.66GHz, 2GB RAM, integrated graphics.
▪ 64-bit antix21-base+LXDE installed on:
- (2008) Asus X71Q (7SC002) – dual CPU Intel T3200@2.0GHz, 4GB RAM. Graphics: Intel Mobile 4 Series, integrated graphics
- (2007) Packard Bell Easynote MX37 (ALP-Ajax C3) – dual CPU Intel T2310@1.46GHz, 2GB RAM. Graphics: Silicon Integrated Systems.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

There will be new iso files up within the next 24 hours (19.2).

What you should do with the iso you have is not install libpam-elogind-compat,
or before running the installer, do sudo apt update && sudo apt dist-upgrade
so that you can use the latest cli-installer.

That mirror message probably means it is down temporarily.

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

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Member mikey777]

Helpful

Up

0

::

anticapitalista wrote:

sudo apt update && sudo apt dist-upgrade

Thanks anticapitalista, that’s really helpful.
During upgrade from 19.1 to 19.2, how do I answer the question in the screenshot below: should I just go for the default [N] option or should I go for the newer version [Y] ?

It’s not always clear to me which one I should use when I carry out either a clean install or an upgrade of an existing antixcore install – many thanks in advance for any clarity on this one.

• This reply was modified 3 years, 1 month ago by mikey777.

Attachments:

1. 

   screenshot-3.jpg
   

▪ 32-bit antix19.4-core+LXDE installed on :
- (2011) Samsung NP-N145 Plus (JP04UK) – single-core CPU Intel Atom N455@1.66GHz, 2GB RAM, integrated graphics.
▪ 64-bit antix21-base+LXDE installed on:
- (2008) Asus X71Q (7SC002) – dual CPU Intel T3200@2.0GHz, 4GB RAM. Graphics: Intel Mobile 4 Series, integrated graphics
- (2007) Packard Bell Easynote MX37 (ALP-Ajax C3) – dual CPU Intel T2310@1.46GHz, 2GB RAM. Graphics: Silicon Integrated Systems.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

In this case, answer Y(es).

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

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Member mikey777]

Helpful

Up

0

::

anticapitalista wrote:

In this case, answer Y(es).

..but in the case of a clean install with 19.2 at the present time, I assume the answer to choose is N(o): is that correct ?

▪ 32-bit antix19.4-core+LXDE installed on :
- (2011) Samsung NP-N145 Plus (JP04UK) – single-core CPU Intel Atom N455@1.66GHz, 2GB RAM, integrated graphics.
▪ 64-bit antix21-base+LXDE installed on:
- (2008) Asus X71Q (7SC002) – dual CPU Intel T3200@2.0GHz, 4GB RAM. Graphics: Intel Mobile 4 Series, integrated graphics
- (2007) Packard Bell Easynote MX37 (ALP-Ajax C3) – dual CPU Intel T2310@1.46GHz, 2GB RAM. Graphics: Silicon Integrated Systems.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

If you download antiX-19.2 then you won’t be prompted in this case since the upgraded package is already on the iso.

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

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Author]

Posts