You are not logged in.

#1 2020-07-19 18:44:09

summers
Member
From: Bath, UK
Registered: 2020-07-19
Posts: 8

Package Inconsistency

Just trying to do a fresh install on my ancient laptop using arch32 ...

Problem I have is name resolution won't start, systemd-resolved - its trying to load libnettle.so.7, but alas the file system contains libnettle.so.8.

So been trying to work out from the boot usb, what to force to update. What I'd like to do from the laptop is a "pacman -Suy", but of course I can't do that becuase no names look up, because systemd-resolved hasn't started.

So what do I need to kick to correct this package mismatch?

If it help pacman -Q says that systemd is on 245.6-2.0 and nettle is on 3.6-1.0

Last edited by summers (2020-07-19 19:08:26)

Offline

#2 2020-07-19 19:29:41

abaumann
Administrator
From: Zurich
Registered: 2019-11-14
Posts: 984
Website

Re: Package Inconsistency

This is not on stable per se, there I see:
ldd /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-resolved | grep nettle
        libnettle.so.8 => /usr/lib/libnettle.so.8 (0xb6f4b000)

So, this must be on the last ISO. Can you try an older ISO in this case?

Offline

#3 2020-07-20 20:52:35

summers
Member
From: Bath, UK
Registered: 2020-07-19
Posts: 8

Re: Package Inconsistency

The problem is that /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-resolved belongs to the package systemd

pacstrap -i /mnt systemd

installs 245.6-2.0 and that contains systemd-resolved looking for libnettle.so.7

Now 245.6-2.0 is the latest release. So are you on testing?

If so is it only testing that will install the correct libnettle and systemd-resolved ?

My problem is I'm doing this from the install image that I had to download onto a USB. So are you saying that the latest image is fault, and I should use an old one?

Offline

#4 2020-07-20 21:28:14

levi
Moderator
From: Yorkshire, UK
Registered: 2018-06-16
Posts: 1,197

Re: Package Inconsistency

Yes, try a slightly older one (the month before perhaps) and see how that works.

Edit: Sorry, that may not help.  If the problem occurs after you pacstrap and chroot into that, that shouldn't be affected by which iso you use.  We may have a more systematic problem here.

Testing contains systemd 2.45.6-8.0, wheras core has 2.45.6-2.0.  2.46.6-80 is linked against libnettle.so.8, and libnettle comes from nettle in core.  Looks like systemd -8.0 needs promoting to core to me.

Last edited by levi (2020-07-20 21:38:37)


Architecture: pentium4, Testing repos: Yes, Hardware: EeePC 901+2GB RAM+OS half on the SD card.

Offline

#5 2020-07-21 20:05:17

summers
Member
From: Bath, UK
Registered: 2020-07-19
Posts: 8

Re: Package Inconsistency

Yes, "pacstrap" downloads the files to install, so it will always use the current distribution. But if I could find the old nettle pacman file, could probably install that.

Whats strange is I guessed that nettle had been upgraded after systemd, and so why its a different version. But no, if you look at the dates of the file, nettle was updated before system; so its very strange.

Offline

#6 2020-07-21 22:04:14

levi
Moderator
From: Yorkshire, UK
Registered: 2018-06-16
Posts: 1,197

Re: Package Inconsistency

All old versions of nettle are available here (as indeed are all packages if you go digging).  But I'm of the opinion that the correct course of action for the repo maintainers is to promote systemd from testing to core, and you could test that instead if you'd prefer.

I'm not sure if I trust the dates on package files. I suspect they're probably the build date of the package, assuming you're looking at modtimes.  Look with ls -lc (or with -ltc and it'll sort them pretty much into install batches).


Architecture: pentium4, Testing repos: Yes, Hardware: EeePC 901+2GB RAM+OS half on the SD card.

Offline

#7 2020-07-22 08:48:43

deep42thought
Administrator
From: Jena, Germany
Registered: 2017-06-17
Posts: 617

Re: Package Inconsistency

systemd does not link against libnettle, but gnutls (which systemd links against) does. Which version of gnutls do you have installed? It looks ok to me in the repositories (should be 3.6.14-1.0).

regards,
deep42thought

Offline

#8 2020-07-22 09:31:36

summers
Member
From: Bath, UK
Registered: 2020-07-19
Posts: 8

Re: Package Inconsistency

Thanks Levi.

deep42 - I'll check when I get home. It was install via pacstrap - and when I checked its always been the latest version. Anyway I'll confirm this evening the exact version, and if necessary bump that by hand.

Offline

#9 2020-07-22 21:07:53

summers
Member
From: Bath, UK
Registered: 2020-07-19
Posts: 8

Re: Package Inconsistency

Hmm - I'm on gnutls 3.6.13-1.0 - let me try and update that ....

Woah - updating that, and now it works. Thanks for the help.

Have to wonder why I had 3.6.13-1.0 installed, when I installed base ...

Offline

#10 2020-07-22 22:13:23

levi
Moderator
From: Yorkshire, UK
Registered: 2018-06-16
Posts: 1,197

Re: Package Inconsistency

Perhaps things were momentarily in a non working combination while packages were getting promoted to core, and you happened to do your pacstrap exactly then.  The next thing to do is to do an update so you're actually using a supported combination.  I've never managed to hit a moment when things stop me even booting the computer properly, and I use the testing repos too, so it seems to me if this is what happened to you, you were extremely unlucky.


Architecture: pentium4, Testing repos: Yes, Hardware: EeePC 901+2GB RAM+OS half on the SD card.

Offline

#11 2020-07-23 10:57:22

summers
Member
From: Bath, UK
Registered: 2020-07-19
Posts: 8

Re: Package Inconsistency

Update was the second thing I did!

First was update the mirror list to a working set of mirrors, which IIRC means just Germany.

Daft thing is, its a 64bit CPU, but the BIOS only brings it up in 32bit mode, it was one of the last of the ASUS netbooks - and not as good as the original 901. Anyway never managed to get a kernel to switch the CPU from 32bit to 64bit - and hence why I'm on Arch 32 ...

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB