Upgrades failing

Forum Forums New users New Users and General Questions Upgrades failing

  • This topic has 19 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated Apr 27-4:35 pm by namida12.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #139976
    Member
    psionl0

      For some strange reason, I am no longer able to upgrade antiX. There appears to be a repository problem. This is a printout of the messages I get when I try:

      $ sudo apt update && sudo apt dist-upgrade
      [sudo] password for demo:
      Get:1 http://security.debian.org buster/updates InRelease [34.8 kB]
      Get:2 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/main amd64 Packages [596 kB]
      Get:3 https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable InRelease [1,825 B]
      Ign:4 http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports InRelease
      Get:6 https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable/main amd64 Packages [1,077 B]
      Get:7 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/main i386 Packages [594 kB]
      Get:9 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster-updates InRelease [56.6 kB]
      Err:10 http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports Release
      404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.106.132 80]
      Get:12 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/main Translation-en [322 kB]
      Get:13 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/contrib amd64 Packages [3,460 B]
      Get:14 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/contrib i386 Packages [3,460 B]
      Get:15 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/contrib Translation-en [1,488 B]
      Get:16 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/non-free amd64 Packages [11.0 kB]
      Get:17 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/non-free i386 Packages [11.3 kB]
      Get:18 http://security.debian.org buster/updates/non-free Translation-en [24.8 kB]
      Get:5 https://mxlinux.mirrors.uk2.net/packages/antix/buster buster InRelease [27.5 kB]
      Get:19 https://mxlinux.mirrors.uk2.net/packages/antix/buster buster/main amd64 Packages [347 kB]
      Get:20 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster InRelease [122 kB]
      Get:21 https://mxlinux.mirrors.uk2.net/packages/antix/buster buster/main i386 Packages [339 kB]
      Get:22 https://mxlinux.mirrors.uk2.net/packages/antix/buster buster/nonfree amd64 Packages [24.3 kB]
      Get:23 https://mxlinux.mirrors.uk2.net/packages/antix/buster buster/nonfree i386 Packages [24.3 kB]
      Get:24 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster-updates/main amd64 Packages [8,788 B]
      Get:25 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster-updates/main i386 Packages [8,816 B]
      Get:26 https://mxlinux.mirrors.uk2.net/packages/antix/buster buster/nosystemd amd64 Packages [117 kB]
      Get:27 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster-updates/main Translation-en [6,915 B]
      Get:28 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/main amd64 Packages [7,909 kB]
      Get:29 https://mxlinux.mirrors.uk2.net/packages/antix/buster buster/nosystemd i386 Packages [116 kB]
      Get:8 https://mxrepo.com/mx/testrepo buster InRelease [6,806 B]
      Get:11 https://mxrepo.com/mx/repo buster InRelease [19.9 kB]
      Get:30 https://mxrepo.com/mx/testrepo buster/test i386 Packages [1,211 kB]
      Get:31 https://mxrepo.com/mx/testrepo buster/test amd64 Packages [1,247 kB]
      Get:32 https://mxrepo.com/mx/repo buster/main i386 Packages [460 kB]
      Get:33 https://mxrepo.com/mx/repo buster/main amd64 Packages [467 kB]
      Get:34 https://mxrepo.com/mx/repo buster/non-free i386 Packages [49.9 kB]
      Get:35 https://mxrepo.com/mx/repo buster/non-free amd64 Packages [51.0 kB]
      Get:36 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/main i386 Packages [7,866 kB]
      Get:37 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/main Translation-en [5,969 kB]
      Get:38 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/contrib i386 Packages [46.0 kB]
      Get:39 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/contrib amd64 Packages [50.1 kB]
      Get:40 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/contrib Translation-en [44.2 kB]
      Get:41 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/non-free i386 Packages [76.3 kB]
      Get:42 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/non-free amd64 Packages [87.8 kB]
      Get:43 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian buster/non-free Translation-en [88.9 kB]
      Reading package lists… Done
      E: The repository ‘http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports Release’ does not have a Release file.
      N: Updating from such a repository can’t be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default.
      N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.
      demo@antix1:~

      #140051
      Moderator
      BobC

        I think debian has changed the repository entry for buster-backports. I noticed this same thing when I tried to update an old antiX 19.2 system.

        I found this on the web:

        https://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/the-repository-http-deb-debian-org-debian-buster-backports-release-no-longer-has-a-release-file/

        PS: I haven’t tried this yet as I’d need to reboot to bring it up…

        In antiX, open the Control Centre, click to the System tab, and click on Edit Config Files, and it will ask for your passwaord and then open Geany. You could search all documents for buster-backports and then…

        Find any lines referencing “http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main …”
        Replace deb.debian.org with archive.debian.org. From:

        deb http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main contrib non-free

        To:

        deb http://archive.debian.org/debian buster-backports main contrib non-free

        Save and close the file

        • This reply was modified 1 month ago by BobC.

        Daily driver distro https://www.antixforum.com

        #140054
        Moderator
        BobC

          It did help, but still getting insurmountable errors… Is there a reason you can’t move to a newer antiX version? You didn’t tell us what you are running. Oh well. I wish people would post the output of inxi -Fxz

          Err:1 http://archive.debian.org/debian buster-backports InRelease        
            The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 0E98404D386FA1D9 NO_PUBKEY 6ED0E7B82643E131
          Reading package lists... Done
          

          Daily driver distro https://www.antixforum.com

          #140060
          Member
          psionl0

            It did help, but still getting insurmountable errors… Is there a reason you can’t move to a newer antiX version? You didn’t tell us what you are running. Oh well. I wish people would post the output of inxi -Fxz

            Err:1 http://archive.debian.org/debian buster-backports InRelease        
              The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 0E98404D386FA1D9 NO_PUBKEY 6ED0E7B82643E131
            Reading package lists... Done
            

            It did help, but still getting insurmountable errors… Is there a reason you can’t move to a newer antiX version? You didn’t tell us what you are running. Oh well. I wish people would post the output of inxi -Fxz

            Err:1 http://archive.debian.org/debian buster-backports InRelease        
              The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 0E98404D386FA1D9 NO_PUBKEY 6ED0E7B82643E131
            Reading package lists... Done
            

            It was my understanding that with full persistence, as long as you did the upgrades, you would be running the latest version of antiX even if you booted off a version 19.2 image. Is this not the case? If I change to a version 23 image will it still pick up the existing persistence files or do I need to make changes?
            I couldn’t find any “http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main …” in the config files.

            I have included the output of inxi -Fxz for your info.

            Attachments:
            #140066
            Moderator
            BobC

              It was my understanding that with full persistence, as long as you did the upgrades, you would be running the latest version of antiX even if you booted off a version 19.2 image. Is this not the case? If I change to a version 23 image will it still pick up the existing persistence files or do I need to make changes?
              I couldn’t find any “http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main …” in the config files.

              I don’t know what it would do because I can’t upgrade my 19.2 one to try and find out. I think it would upgrade to anything new in the repos you are using when you upgraded if you are saving home and root persistance. So, what was in the buster repos the last time you upgraded?

              I don’t know why buster-backports was not in any of your config files. Maybe its been removed or you didn’t look in the right files.

              My thought would be to get a list of the packages from your 19.3 system so you would remember to install the manually installed ones on your new antiX 23.1 setup, and save your /home somewhere so you could import your files and any configurations you need from it to your new antiX 23 /home. I would make a new USB for antiX 23.1 to do that with and leave the old antiX 19.3 one alone as a fallback.

              Just my 2 cents worth of thoughts…

              • This reply was modified 1 month ago by BobC.

              Daily driver distro https://www.antixforum.com

              #140069
              Moderator
              caprea

                It was my understanding that with full persistence, as long as you did the upgrades, you would be running the latest version of antiX even if you booted off a version 19.2 image. Is this not the case?

                No, debian buster stays debian buster, oldoldstable (antiX19)
                If you want the newest version you have to install antiX23 on your live stick (debian bookworm, stable)

                I couldn’t find any “http://deb.debian.org/debian buster-backports main …” in the config files.

                It should be there in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/buster-backports.list
                On my antiX19 it worked to change the list.

                Attachments:
                #140074
                Forum Admin
                rokytnji

                  Screwed up my /etc/apt/sources.list with a debian backports home made edit I found online.

                  What I did to fix this.

                  First I went to /etc/apt/sources.list. Not /etc/apt/sources.listd.
                  Opened it in geany to see what was in there. Only thing there was my home made edit.

                  Then I looked inside /etc/apt/sources.listd and made sure the backports line was commented out with a hashmark.
                  To make sure it was disabled.

                  Then I went into term and did this.
                  su
                  enter my password for root prompt.
                  Then
                  cd /etc/apt
                  When there.
                  rm sources.list

                  Closed everything up after that.
                  Rebooted just for the hell of it.

                  Hit my updater. All errors are gone now. Decided I did not need what I thought I wanted from backports in the middle of the night.
                  Can’t even remember what it was now. Brain fart. Just remembered. It was that youtube terminal app only sid and backports had.
                  I decided not important enough to break my install. I read threads all day here sometimes and try poke and hope tests when something
                  trips my fancy. Not a fancy anymore so don’t bother how to tell me how to do that.
                  I can live without it. Everyone knows I am on bookworm. My gear is pretty good. So terminal apps I can live without if I break my install.

                  Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
                  I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute off it.
                  Motorcycle racing is rocket science.

                  Linux Registered User # 475019
                  How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems

                  #140154
                  Member
                  psionl0

                    Found /etc/apt/sources.list.d/buster-backports.list and changed http://deb.debian.org/debian/ buster-backports main contrib non-free to http://archive.debian.org/debian/ buster-backports main contrib non-free and upgrades are working again.

                    As a bonus, firefox is no longer locking up (I have been using google-chrome in the mean time).

                    Thank you for your assistance.

                    #140155
                    Member
                    psionl0

                      I am reluctant to switch to version 23 for fear that it might break my existing setup. Maybe I will get brave one day.

                      #140184
                      Moderator
                      Brian Masinick

                        I am reluctant to switch to version 23 for fear that it might break my existing setup. Maybe I will get brave one day.

                        While that is certainly your choice, I recently compared a few of our recent versions by plugging in a few “older” USB drives containing previous systems and compared them to our most current release.

                        I do have one system, my HP-14 (14-fq1025) and it works REALLY well with our most current version, antiX 23.1.
                        All of the remaining systems I still have are 64-bit systems, but two of them are at least a decade old; the last time I used them, ALL of them work with the most recent version of antiX, so it may be worth a try.

                        I suggest either retaining a copy of your current system, or if you do not have one, use one of our tools to SAVE it, such as our ISO Snapshot tool, which …”creates a bootable image (ISO) of your working system that you can use for storage or distribution. You can continue working with undemanding applications while it is running.”

                        Then once you have a safe copy of your current system you can RISK getting a copy of the most current antiX 23.1 and install it. IF it does not work, simply reinstall the ISO Snapshot image you created and go back to your previous system. Also, if the NEW system WORKS, I recommend preserving it with an ISO Snapshot too; it’s an awesome way to make a system BACKUP that can also be used to install on other computers.

                        --
                        Brian Masinick

                        #140191
                        Forum Admin
                        rokytnji

                          Then once you have a safe copy of your current system you can RISK getting a copy of the most current antiX 23.1 and install it.

                          Had to do that on my antiX 22 chromebook install. Brian knows what I went through to get antiX 23.1 runit to work real good on my chromebook install.

                          I used a small fat32 pendrive to store my backup snapshot on. Since / was only 16 gig. If I had to go big snapshot. I woulda used my 1TB Toshiba external usb SSD drive.
                          That drive is now BTFRS file system instead of NTFS. For some reason. While transferring files. I lost everything on that drive and I blame the NTFS file system it came with.

                          Anyways. My saved snapshot made me feel safe with getting 23.1 working on my chromebook.

                          Sometimes I drive a crooked road to get my mind straight.
                          I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute off it.
                          Motorcycle racing is rocket science.

                          Linux Registered User # 475019
                          How to Search for AntiX solutions to your problems

                          #140541
                          Member
                          namida12

                            I have booted my system from the replaced Samsung 970 1 tb nvme solid state drive using a usb adapter. I have done this because I can not update the newly installed antiX-23.1-runit_x64-full distro installed on a 2 tb Crucial nvme solid state drive.

                            This is the message I get on the 970 Samsung I booted from, instead of the new nvme 2tb solid state drive.

                            “The repository may no longer be available or could not be contacted because of network problems. If available an older version of the failed index will be used. Otherwise the repository will be ignored. Check your network connection and ensure the repository address in the preferences is correct.”

                            “An error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not updated and the previous index files will be used. GPG error: http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm bookworm InRelease: The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo <repo@antixlinux.com>Failed to fetch http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm/dists/bookworm/InRelease The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo <repo@antixlinux.com>Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead.”

                            New 2tb nvme solid state drive that will not update via Synaptic:
                            “The repository may no longer be available or could not be contacted because of network problems. If available an older version of the failed index will be used. Otherwise the repository will be ignored. Check your network connection and ensure the repository address in the preferences is correct.

                            GPG error: http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm bookworm InRelease: The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo <repo@antixlinux.com>The repository ‘http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm bookworm InRelease’ is not signed.”

                            I get a slightly different message after trying several of the fixes listed above in this thread. I was surprised the version 23 on the older 1tb solid state drive receives a slightly different update error in Synaptic.
                            http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm bookworm InRelease’ is not signed.”

                            Package installer: Popular Applications provides this error: “Hit:5 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian bookworm InRelease
                            Reading package lists…
                            W: GPG error: http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm bookworm InRelease: The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo <repo@antixlinux.com>
                            E: The repository ‘http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm bookworm InRelease’ is not signed.
                            Warning: apt-key is deprecated. Manage keyring files in trusted.gpg.d instead (see apt-key(8)).”
                            OK

                            Hope this helps someone this is way above my head…

                            JR

                            • This reply was modified 1 month ago by namida12. Reason: attachment and different neme solid state drive boot
                            • This reply was modified 1 month ago by namida12.
                            • This reply was modified 1 month ago by namida12.
                            Attachments:
                            #140558
                            Moderator
                            Brian Masinick

                              I may have the same problem: I just wrote another post with a similar scenario;
                              I’ll look later to see if they are the same or different;
                              meanwhile I’m looking for other “edge cases” to see if we have a serious issue or not.

                              --
                              Brian Masinick

                              #140560
                              Moderator
                              Brian Masinick

                                The most recent issue (toward the end of your post) is a result of a temporary signature issue:

                                EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo

                                The other matters (possible size issue for large (1 tb nvme solid state drive) isn’t identical, but I have an issue with a 1 TB USB drive!

                                Let’s see if they are related in any way.

                                --
                                Brian Masinick

                                #140565
                                Member
                                n7ekg

                                  The most recent issue (toward the end of your post) is a result of a temporary signature issue:

                                  EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo

                                  The other matters (possible size issue for large (1 tb nvme solid state drive) isn’t identical, but I have an issue with a 1 TB USB drive!

                                  Let’s see if they are related in any way.

                                  Probably no. I’m also getting the error:

                                  Err:5 http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm bookworm InRelease
                                  The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo <repo@antixlinux.com>
                                  Fetched 472 kB in 1s (318 kB/s)
                                  Reading package lists… Done
                                  W: An error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not updated and the previous index files will be used. GPG error: http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm bookworm InRelease: The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo <repo@antixlinux.com>
                                  W: Failed to fetch http://la.mxrepo.com/antix/bookworm/dists/bookworm/InRelease The following signatures were invalid: EXPKEYSIG DB36CDF3452F0C20 antiX Linux repo <repo@antixlinux.com>
                                  W: Some index files failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead.

                                  Linux Founding Father, been developing for Linux since 1992.

                                Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
                                • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.