You are not logged in.
Not sure. You may need to find out when they went into bullseye-backports which would have been sometime later than what the source version code 20210818-1 suggests.
I wouldn't expect more than a week in lag since that's the period for amprolla's full merge.
Thanks for noticing. Since it is merging rather than mirroring, there is a short lag before debian packages appear in the devuan repositories.
.. and you might want to fit in an unsort (from the unsort package) on the filename list to avoid the play order rigidity.
If you installing without "recommends", you might also need the explicit
apt-get install zfs-modulesto trigger their building.
@tux perhaps you could describe briefly what the various snd-hda-intel options do for you?
No, the installer-iso is still version devuan_chimaera_4.0.0_amd64_desktop.iso.
I think @Camtaf is talking about desktop-live, which is a different alternative that many people prefer.
Perhaps you can capture /var/log/syslog from the installer and show here.
For instance use ctrl-alt-f2 to enter a shell at vt2, then set up a receiver
nc -l -p 10000 > capture.logon another machine, say 10.0.0.5, and copy over with
nc -w 2 10.0.0.5 10000 < /var/log/syslogfrom the installer shell to the receiver on that other machine.
The ISO is a s.c hybrid ISO that presents itself both as a CDROM and as a disk image with 2 partitions where the first is a CDROM and the second is a FAT filesystem (for UEFI boot). The partition block ranges overlap of course, as the FAT filesystem is in fact an image file within the CDROM, but the bios is not clever enough to worry about that.
In any case, the log file should give some lead to why the installer cannot find the CDROM.
Let me drop two tidbits as a matter of background knowledge:
a) the domain name deb.devuan.org, which is the right one to use, resolves into a collection of alternative IP addresses (ipv4 and ipv6). During any apt operation, every server request will use some IP from that list, and then that server will be the one providing the response to that request.
b) the apt system has meta-information files that tells "where" (in networking sense) the packages are. For Devuan those URLs include some forked packages that are directly served from Devuan package pool mirrors, and a majority of packages that Devuan mirrors handle by means of redirect URLs, to be served by Debian's package pool mirrors.
Your reported case for example shows that chromium is not forked but retrieved via such a redirect, and apparently that redirect pin-pointed http://debian.bio.lmu.de as redirection target. I.e., the Devuan mirror that was picked offered that redirect, and evidently there was some issue with access to 2001:4ca0:4300::1:22 (aka http://debian.bio.lmu.de) at that time.
Perhaps / is mounted read-only due to filesystem errors?
If so, you probably need to boot up with another root filesystem so as to fsck the root partition first.
Or you might try to remount / read-write.
Another option is to mount a tmpfs onto /tmp. Though that might not be enough as it won't allow log files or authority files to be written.
Which iso?
Well, "gnome-keyring" is a program, not a collection of keys.
As the key issue was fixed without needing ISO remake, the trial remakes were removed.
No worries. I didn't think I took offense, but hmm maybe I did. But it is true that I do need to retire off Devuan and that new and more people need to step up and in; not necessarily you of course.
The installer ISOs are built using https://git.devuan.org/devuan/installer-iso.git which has been streamlined into an almost push-button state by now. But, whenever an ISO is built, it relies on the state of the repository at that particular time and it's always possible for some update inconsistency to slip in. It is therefore I think the installer ISOs typically need a broader testing than a single person running through it once.
BTW I'm all for testing software before releasing.
But right now the installer images don't work at all, and the fix seems quite straightforward to me.
Great. Welcome on board!
I'm probably doing things wrong yes, and need to retire.
We can rely on you taking over this?
Just in parenthesis: all the installers do still work fine as long as you avoid network mirror backing during installation. It of course means that you'll end up with a rather minimal system, but it's still one where you can use the manual patching (wget + dpkg) before using the network mirroring/access the first time.
At https://ido.rrq.id.au/download there is an initial collection of trial installer ISOs that need to be tested in a range of settings.
Everyone here who doesn't devalue themselves with the label "just a Devuan user" should grab at least one of them and run it through a number of variations, and then report on it, maybe as an email to me. Refer to usecases.html for the primary use case division. VM trials as well as bare-metal trials are good.
EDIT: my alternate email is rrq at rrq dot id dot au
Ogis1975's is a reasonable question to ask.
I disagree: it's a totally useless question.
Obviously there has been some kind of process failure when everyone in the whole community, including you and Ogis1975 as well as myself, failed to notice that the repository key was about to expire.
You don't have to ask about that. Rather you should ask yourself: "how can I help in the future?" and then act towards that.
@Ogis1975: So what's your purpose with that kind of post?
The first step would be to determine which, if any, installation use case(s) need attention.
Considering the situation are you going to soon release the updated ISO in which this problem will be fixed?
Yes, it would be an excellent contribution to the Devuan project to refresh any of the various installer ISOs for this.
At 2022-09-04, the devuan repository key BB23C00C61FC752C updated at 2017 expired, which has led to difficulties for many users. The key has been corrected in the repository by expanding the validity period, and a new version of devuan-keyring, version 2022.09.04, is available.
It is only slightly complicated for an end user to get that new version installed given that their currently installed key version has expired. My proposed hands-on is as follows:
First alternative: this method removes the old local InRelease file for the distribution manually, and then installs the new devuan-keyring with "lowered apt security barriers". The sequence of commands are (example for chimaera; change appropriately for beowulf and ascii):
# rm /var/lib/apt/lists/deb.devuan.org_merged_dists_chimaera_InRelease
# apt-get update --allow-unauthenticated --allow-insecure-repositories
# apt-get install devuan-keyring --allow-unauthenticated
Second alternative: Anyone uncomfortable with those command line options should rather download the new keyring directly, eg
# wget http://deb.devuan.org/devuan/pool/main/d/devuan-keyring/devuan-keyring_2022.09.04_all.deb
# sha256sum devuan-keyring_2022.09.04_all.deb 96c4a206e8dfdc21138ec619687ef9acf36e1524dd39190c040164f37cc3468d
# dpkg -i devuan-keyring_2022.09.04_all.deb
Further alternatives: if you have your own method that works, then that is fine too.
When the new devuan-keyring has been installed the apt system is operated as per usual.
Note that the full hands-on may also require that the old local InRelease file for the distribution is removed manually, so the sequence of command would thus be (eg for chimaera):
# rm /var/lib/apt/lists/deb.devuan.org_merged_dists_chimaera_InRelease
# apt-get update --allow-unauthenticated --allow-insecure-repositories
# apt-get install devuan-keyring --allow-unauthenticated
Alternatively: Anyone uncomfortable with those command line options should rather download the new keyring directly, eg
# sha256sum devuan-keyring_2022.09.04_all.deb 96c4a206e8dfdc21138ec619687ef9acf36e1524dd39190c040164f37cc3468d
# dpkg -i devuan-keyring_2022.09.04_all.deb
Alternatively: if you have your own method that works, then that is fine too.
You don't mention whether(/that?) you also re-created the block device (major:minor = 254:5) as /dev/dm-5?
Isn't the #PV just a counter?
If there is a difference between Devuan/Debian and those other OS types, it might be a difference in the lvm.conf files. Perhaps you can diff those between systems?
I believe the next attempt would be to: a) deactivate that volume group, then b) manually remove spurious links for that volume group in /dev and /dev/mapper, and then c) activate it again.
That's on the assumption that the disk itself doesn't happen to contain some old LVM meta-data on the partitions. As you know, LVM writes stuff onto the partitions, and some of its admin scripts gets confused if there are even accidental remnants of old meta-data.
One step to deal with that would be to delete the physical volume from the volume group, then clear it fully, and then add it again.
You might have forgotten to activate the volume group?