Debian upgrade may 'break' systems

A Debian developer has warned around 30 percent of users upgrading to the new version of his project's Linux distribution would seriously disrupt their systems in the process.

"I expect around 30 percent of users will suffer serious breakage that could have been avoided," wrote Debian developer Bill Allombert in an e-mail warning to the community. He said he was personally not satisfied with the state of the upgrade process to version 3.1, which was released earlier this week.

Allombert said many of the software bugs that would cause problems for users had previously been reported to Debian's bug-tracking database. He said he reached a number of conclusions by trying to artificially reproduce the reported issues.

Firstly, he said, a lot of problems were caused by software packages dependent upon other software packages, which in turn were dependent on the first lot in a cycle known as "circular dependencies". This would create problems installing or upgrading either bunch.

Also, key software installation tools 'apt' and 'aptitude' depended heavily on the C++ software library, which made them difficult to upgrade if the library changed. Compounding the problem, the tools needed to upgraded before most other software packages.

Thirdly the developer said far too many software packages tinkered with configuration files needed during the upgrade.

Allombert finally highlighted what he saw as a deficiency in the thoroughness of Debian's testing of the upgrade process.

The upgrade process should be tested continually during development, he said, because there was not enough time during a crucial code 'freeze' period immediately before the distribution's release date.

"Another conclusion is that this needs to be done automatically," he said. "Unfortunately I do not have access to suitable hardware anymore to do such [an] upgrade test, so help with this project would be more than welcome."

Allombert concluded by calling for Debian developers to achieve a better result for the project's next software release.

The news comes as Debian was forced to update version 3.1 of its distribution less than 24 hours after it was released this week. The software -- which has been three years in development -- was released with the security update feature disabled for installations from optical media.

Advertisement

Talkback 15 comments

    "Disabled on optical media"... yeah , and its not the first time its happened either. cdroms have been ignored by debian before until its too late. A previous releae of debian didn't have the id strings for each cd set , so the updatAnonymous -- 11/06/05

    "Disabled on optical media"...

    yeah , and its not the first time its happened either. cdroms have been ignored by debian before until its too late. A previous releae of debian didn't have the id strings for each cd set , so the updating tool couldn't recognise the CD , and you were forced to install a few thousand packages by hand , individually. This wasn't fun.

    Come on guys and girls , lift your game.

    This is a horribly biased commentary. This problematic upgrade is for users that are not using stable releases. The last released version is an stable one, and those updating from the old stable to the new one won't have any problem. Others are just seeinAnonymous -- 11/06/05

    This is a horribly biased commentary. This problematic upgrade is for users that are not using stable releases. The last released version is an stable one, and those updating from the old stable to the new one won't have any problem. Others are just seeing how the testing takes place...

    The sad part is that reading this headline you could conclude that Debian ships broken releases. Which is totally wrong.

    I do not agree. I have upgraded two Alpha machines and 1 Intel machine from Woody to Sarge and the upgrade was flawless. I have also one new Sarge install that has been upgrading for about 6 months now during the last phases of the release cycle. No prAnonymous -- 11/06/05

    I do not agree. I have upgraded two Alpha machines and 1 Intel machine from Woody to Sarge and the upgrade was flawless. I have also one new Sarge install that has been upgrading for about 6 months now during the last phases of the release cycle. No problems there either. Could the author list specific examples of what could cause the problems rather than generic statements ?

    No problem here with 4 Sarges...

    "Firstly"...are you serious? do you guys have editors?Anonymous -- 11/06/05

    "Firstly"...are you serious? do you guys have editors?

    I've upgraded 3 woody systems to sarge this afternoon (6 more to go). I've experienced no problems. Of course, before the upgrade I carefully read the release notes and precisely followed the upgrade instructions.Anonymous -- 11/06/05

    I've upgraded 3 woody systems to sarge this afternoon (6 more to go). I've experienced no problems. Of course, before the upgrade I carefully read the release notes and precisely followed the upgrade instructions.

    Article my result in a 'break' in your mind. It's full of biased commentary on a very stable and upgradeable OS. Imagine MS trying to upgrade an entire operating system (including all programs.. photoshop, dreamweaver, etc.) in one upgrade. Of course Anonymous -- 11/06/05

    Article my result in a 'break' in your mind. It's full of biased commentary on a very stable and upgradeable OS. Imagine MS trying to upgrade an entire operating system (including all programs.. photoshop, dreamweaver, etc.) in one upgrade. Of course there will be things that don't work 100% right away... idiot.

    "Firstly" and "First" are both perfectly acceptable. Stick to programming.Anonymous -- 11/06/05

    "Firstly" and "First" are both perfectly acceptable. Stick to programming.

    I am one of the unlucky sysadmins affected by the problems in the upgrade from Woody. It was a shock because Debian upgrades have always been trouble-free for me in the past. Now I'm not going to upgrade any of my other Debian systems for a while beforeAnonymous -- 11/06/05

    I am one of the unlucky sysadmins affected by the problems in the upgrade from Woody. It was a shock because Debian upgrades have always been trouble-free for me in the past. Now I'm not going to upgrade any of my other Debian systems for a while before making sure the bugs are all worked out. It was a big disappointment and I still don't have everything working on that system. Perhaps if I had done what the other poster mentioned and read the upgrade instructions carefully, it would have helped, but Debian upgrades in the past have always been as simple as apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade.

    Things on my system are now so thoroughly broken that I may have to wipe it and start from scratch.

    Anon from Washington State, you must be very stupid because all the other heros here are successful in their upgrades....or maybe not they are just verbose about the article not realityAnonymous -- 11/06/05

    Anon from Washington State, you must be very stupid because all the other heros here are successful in their upgrades....or maybe not they are just verbose about the article not reality

    listen up, jamica. how can you correct me when you obviously dont know what you're talking about? try a little grammar research. http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/adverbs.htmAnonymous -- 11/06/05

    listen up, jamica. how can you correct me when you obviously dont know what you're talking about? try a little grammar research. http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/adverbs.htm

    "Using Adverbs in a Numbered List Within the normal flow of text, it's nearly always a bad idea to number items beyond three or four, at the most. Anything beyond that, you're better off with a vertical list that uses numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.Anonymous -- 11/06/05

    "Using Adverbs in a Numbered List

    Within the normal flow of text, it's nearly always a bad idea to number items beyond three or four, at the most. Anything beyond that, you're better off with a vertical list that uses numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.). Also, in such a list, don't use adverbs (with an -ly ending); use instead the uninflected ordinal number (first, second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.). First (not firstly), it's unclear what the adverb is modifying. Second (not secondly), it's unnecessary. Third (not thirdly), after you get beyond "secondly," it starts to sound silly. Adverbs that number in this manner are treated as disjuncts."
    http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/adverbs.htm

    Dear "unlucky anonymous sysadmin", You wrote: "Perhaps if I had done what the other poster mentioned and read the upgrade instructions carefully, it would have helped, but Debian upgrades in the past have always been as simplAnonymous -- 11/06/05

    Dear "unlucky anonymous sysadmin",

    You wrote:
    "Perhaps if I had done what the other poster mentioned and read the upgrade instructions carefully, it would have helped, but Debian upgrades in the past have always been as simple as apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade."

    I do not pity you. 'apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade' should not be used to upgrade between releases and if you'll be only a bit careful in your work, you'll know it. The upgrade instructions were always posted in big, friendly letters with every new release.

    If you couldn't read and understand the Release Notes since the time of the last two releases, you've got what any careless admin deserves.

    A lesson.

    What is the problem that 30% of users may see? Where did Bill send this email (which debian list archive)?Anonymous -- 11/06/05

    What is the problem that 30% of users may see?

    Where did Bill send this email (which debian list archive)?

    Please, read original message carefully. This message isn't for sarge users - it's for Etch (feature version of Debian) developers. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00006.htmlAnonymous -- 12/06/05

    Please, read original message carefully. This message isn't for sarge users - it's for Etch (feature version of Debian) developers.

    http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/06/msg00006.html

    The only thing that's stupid is name-calling, and this knee-jerk reaction that so many posters have--deny any problem and call the whistle-blower "stupid." The flamers on this article are not worthy to belong to the Linux community. Anonymous -- 21/06/05

    The only thing that's stupid is name-calling, and this knee-jerk reaction that so many posters have--deny any problem and call the whistle-blower "stupid."

    The flamers on this article are not worthy to belong to the Linux community.

    And should grow up.

Add your opinion


Latest Videos

Blogs

  • Renai LeMay Datacentre disaster lessons
    As a system administrator, the health and status of your datacentre is at the forefront of your mind. But how often do you think about the needs beyond server status and bandwidth?
  • Array E-health too unsexy for COAG
    There will always be something more politically sexy than e-health for state governments, meaning the National E-Health Transition Authority's business case for a national electronic medical record might just sit on the shelf gathering dust forever.
  • Array TelstraUnClear
    Telstra's New Zealand arm TelstraClear is one strange company ...
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured