TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:46:32
what came to mind, but is _WRONG_: apt-get update && apt-get clean && apt-get dist-upgrade -y --download-only && mv /var/cache/apt/archives/*.deb /root/updates
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:46:42
and then at a later time: dpkg -i *.deb
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:46:59
but... meh.... that marks all packages as installed instead of being pulled in as dependency
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:47:30
so I'm very curious if you would have an idea
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:49:08
I'm also looking at aptitude if it might have something interesting on this matter
petn-randall 2017-01-24 03:54:00
!kiss
dpkg 2017-01-24 03:54:00
[kiss] Keep It Simple Stupid!!!
petn-randall 2017-01-24 03:54:23
TvL2386: I'd just run 'apt update && apt upgrade' on the test machine, and then the same on production.
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:54:55
I'm in a different situation... I have to update test... then ask the customer to test... then in a few days I have to do production
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:55:05
and I have to make sure production is not getting newer stuff than test
petn-randall 2017-01-24 03:55:38
TvL2386: Are you shipping any 3rd party packages?
Brigo 2017-01-24 03:55:42
TvL2386, sounds very funny
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:56:13
petn-randall, no everything is from the default repositories. I do have a mariadb-ppa on a ubuntu server
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:56:26
that's a bit contradictory though... sorry :)
tw 2017-01-24 03:56:29
You should push for decoupling your system administration from your product releases. You're going to be significantly delayed on your security updates based on your current update model.
petn-randall 2017-01-24 03:58:32
TvL2386: For Debian there is a strict "only security bugfixes" policy for stable, so you nearly blindly just upgrade all the time. Can't say the same for Ubuntu and their PPAs, though.
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:58:34
ok ok... but what's best practice! I read a lot of different things on the net
petn-randall 2017-01-24 03:58:53
TvL2386: I just install unattended-upgrades and let it do the job.
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:59:17
petn-randall, and unattended-upgrades simply upgrades all
petn-randall 2017-01-24 03:59:34
TvL2386: In the default setting, it just install security updates.
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:59:35
?
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:59:44
yeah I know petn-randall
TvL2386 2017-01-24 03:59:56
but you do all?
petn-randall 2017-01-24 04:00:18
TvL2386: no, I just do security updates.
TvL2386 2017-01-24 04:00:25
ah check
petn-randall 2017-01-24 04:01:07
TvL2386: you can also set it to send you a mail of the changelog.
TvL2386 2017-01-24 04:01:23
sounds good
tw 2017-01-24 04:03:01
It depends on how much you pull in from the base system in your application. If you're mixing static and dynamic linking, you're in for pain. In general, I've not had problems with application code only pulling in security updates.
tw 2017-01-24 04:03:53
If it's only scripts or VM interpreted stuff, you'll probably be able to ride out any update without noticing anything.
petn-randall 2017-01-24 04:03:54
tw: If you statically link, you need to re-compile your application on every library update, anyway.
tw 2017-01-24 04:04:17
You don't *need* to update at all. That's the point of static linking.
tw 2017-01-24 04:04:23
You should, of course.
petn-randall 2017-01-24 04:05:44
tw: Sure, I just thought we're talking about update strategies. "Not updating" is a possible, but probably the worst option.
tw 2017-01-24 04:07:59
I tend to treat product updates and system updates separately. Product updates have to go through significant testing internally where system updates should have gone through that qualification externally.
TvL2386 2017-01-24 04:08:26
thanks for the feedback
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:16:23
hum what can I do to delete a folder which return "rm: cannot remove `test': Directory not empty" even with rm -rf ? There is a weird file called "ChIN¼ò½éÃ'³QCPE Ã?¿»¯³ÌÃ?ò½»»»" inside :-/
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:16:37
TAB kills my shell when I try type the filename in question
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:16:55
I also tried with find -print0 | xargs -0 rm but not better
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:17:04
tried also a tar --remove-files
petn-randall 2017-01-24 04:17:34
darxmurf: Have you tried fsck'ing the umounted filesystem? Looks like it may be corrupted.
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:18:32
it's a NETAPP mounted via NFS :-/
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:18:43
I'll try to delete it from a windows machine now
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:19:38
okay I could remove it from windows Oo
jelly 2017-01-24 04:20:49
darxmurf: use a better shell?
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:21:46
well I could always deal with those UTF8 filenames without problem :-) this one was a bit strange I think
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:22:19
and in windows it was displaying the filename using the old school DOS notation FILE~1.xyz
darxmurf 2017-01-24 04:22:22
:)
godless_ 2017-01-24 04:36:37
Question: Running Debian Testing, unable to install zfs-dkms, it's non responsive on "Building initial module for 4.8.0-2-amd64" line
godless_ 2017-01-24 04:37:38
Currently apt suggest running 'dpkg --configure -a' but it always hangs on that line
godless_ 2017-01-24 04:42:34
Answer: I think I resolved it, seems the needed dependencies didn't get setup till after zfs-dkms ran. Manually aborting zfs-dkms seems to install the needed deps
