Hello
I tried to install the above upgrade but when the process ends, the upgrade is still there, does not appear.....Any idea?
libapt-inst2.0 1.8.2.2 installation problem
-
I use OMV5 on a Raspi 4 2GB and I have the same problem. So you are not alone in the world.
I tried
Codesudo dpkg --onfigure -a sudo apt-get -f installbut the probem is still there.
-
What is the output of sudo apt-cache policy libapt-inst2.0? Do you get any error messages you haven't mentioned yet?
-
What is the output of sudo apt-cache policy libapt-inst2.0? Do you get any error messages you haven't mentioned yet?
libapt-inst2.0:
Installed: 1.8.2.2
Candidate: 1.8.2.2
Version table:
1.8.2.2 500
500 http://raspbian.raspberrypi.org/raspbian buster/main armhf Packages
*** 1.8.2.2 500
500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates/main armhf Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
-
That is the same package version with the same priority provided by two different mirrors but with different hashsums. That will lead to exactly the outcome you describe: an endless installation loop.
I believe the Raspbian project rebuilds the packages from Debian and you cannot mix Debian repositories with Raspbian repositories except you have a profound knowledge of what you are doing (... and then you can still run into a lot of trouble).
-
That is the same package version with the same priority provided by two different mirrors but with different hashsums. That will lead to exactly the outcome you describe: an endless installation loop.
I believe the Raspbian project rebuilds the packages from Debian and you cannot mix Debian repositories with Raspbian repositories except you have a profound knowledge of what you are doing (... and then you can still run into a lot of trouble).
ok thanks, what`s next? Can I remove this from the update list?
-
If you are running Raspbian you should remove the Debian security repository. If you are running Debian you should remove the Raspbian repository (in /etc/apt/sources.list or in any of the *.list in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/). Then the problem should disappear.
-
If you are running Raspbian you should remove the Debian security repository. If you are running Debian you should remove the Raspbian repository (in /etc/apt/sources.list or in any of the *.list in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/. Then the problem should disappear.
OMV itself adds the security repo. This is the first time I have seen a conflicting hash and I created the first raspbian OMV image probably five plus years ago. I need to try to recreate this...
$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.list
deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates main contrib non-free
-
I just installed a fresh, latest armhf raspios image and then OMV via the install script. After this:
pi@rpi4b:~ $ apt-cache policy libapt-inst2.0
libapt-inst2.0:
Installed: 1.8.2.1
Candidate: 1.8.2.2
Version table:
1.8.2.2 500
500 http://raspbian.raspberrypi.org/raspbian buster/main armhf Packages
1.8.2.2 500
500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates/main armhf Packages
*** 1.8.2.1 100
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
Then I ran apt-get dist-upgrade and it used the version from the raspbian repo.
Get:12 http://mirrors.gigenet.com/raspbian/raspbian buster/main armhf libapt-inst2.0 armhf 1.8.2.2 [200 kB]
Had no problem installing.
$ dpkg -l | grep libapt-inst
ii libapt-inst2.0:armhf 1.8.2.2 armhf deb package format runtime library
-
The question is if this package is re-installed again and again due to the differing hashsums if you run apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade now.
-
-
I think the test is not right. It should be:
- install from Rasbian
- apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
- install from Debian
- apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade
The thing that happens is that apt detects that the installed package doesn't have the same hashsum as the one provided by the server and will reinstall it. However I don't which roles file dates (mirror) and/or order in sources.list and/or apt configurations play in this situation. I've however seen it several times (especially in times when a lot of people had their own repositories and didn't change the Debian package version when rebuilding a package). IMHO one could increase the verbosity of the APT resolver on the affected systems to see what is actually happening.
-
I think the test is not right. It should be:
While I didn't think it would make a difference, I ran the test. No problems.
The thing that happens is that apt detects that the installed package doesn't have the same hashsum as the one provided by the server and will reinstall it. However I don't which roles file dates (mirror) and/or order in sources.list and/or apt configurations play in this situation. I've however seen it several times (especially in times when a lot of people had their own repositories and didn't change the Debian package version when rebuilding a package). IMHO one could increase the verbosity of the APT resolver on the affected systems to see what is actually happening.
I have been plugin packages for years and often build the same version many times before uploading to the repo. Then dist-upgrades never have issues. I have seen hash problems caused by bad Releases file in the repo or even failing media for the OS but not this.
-
So what should I do then...?
Maybe this will work? Just tried this on my test system and had no issue but I can't replicate the issues.
sudo mv /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.bak
sudo apt-get update
sudo rm /var/lib/dpkg/info/libapt-inst2.0:armhf.md5sums
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get clean
sudo apt-get --reinstall install libapt-inst2.0
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
-
Alles anzeigen
Maybe this will work? Just tried this on my test system and had no issue but I can't replicate the issues.
sudo mv /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.bak
sudo apt-get update
sudo rm /var/lib/dpkg/info/libapt-inst2.0:armhf.md5sums
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get clean
sudo apt-get --reinstall install libapt-inst2.0
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
YOU ARE THE MAN!
THANKS, THIS HELPED.
-
Alles anzeigen
Maybe this will work? Just tried this on my test system and had no issue but I can't replicate the issues.
sudo mv /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.bak
sudo apt-get update
sudo rm /var/lib/dpkg/info/libapt-inst2.0:armhf.md5sums
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get clean
sudo apt-get --reinstall install libapt-inst2.0
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade
Worked for me as well.
Thank you !
I assume the file needs to be renamed back?
sudo mv /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.bak /etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.list
-
I've the same problem(rpi4), but not only with the "libapt-inst2.0 1.8.2.2" package. There are 62 packages that get installed over and over again.
e.g. Unpacking sudo (1.8.27-1+deb10u3) over (1.8.27-1+deb10u3) ...
After latest update to 5..6.3-1 I got system emails every day:
Code
Alles anzeigenThe following security packages have been installed automatically. CRON-APT RUN [/etc/cron-apt/config]: Sat Apr 10 07:37:11 +04 2021 CRON-APT SLEEP: 3462, Sat Apr 10 08:34:53 +04 2021 CRON-APT ACTION: 5-openmediavault-security CRON-APT LINE: /usr/bin/apt-get --option quiet=1 --option APT::Get::List-Cleanup=false --option Dir::Etc::SourceList=/etc/apt/sources.list.d/openmediavault-os-security.list --option Dir::Etc::SourceParts="/dev/null" --option DPkg::Options::=--force-confold dist-upgrade --yes --option APT::Get::Show-Upgraded=true Reading package lists... Building dependency tree... Reading state information... Calculating upgrade... The following packages will be upgraded: apt apt-utils bind9-host curl dnsutils git libapt-inst2.0 libapt-pkg5.0 libbind9-161 libcurl3-gnutls libcurl4 libdns-export1104 libdns1104 libexpat1 libfreetype6 libfreetype6-dev libfribidi0 libgssapi-krb5-2 libicu63 libidn2-0 libirs161 libisc-export1100 libisc1100 libisccc161 libisccfg163 libjson-c3 libk5crypto3 libkrb5-3 libkrb5support0 libldb1 liblwres161 libnghttp2-14 libnginx-mod-http-dav-ext libnginx-mod-http-echo libnginx-mod-http-image-filter libnginx-mod-mail libnginx-mod-stream libnss3 libp11-kit0 libproxy1v5 libsasl2-2 libsasl2-modules libsasl2-modules-db libtiff5 libzmq5 nginx-full patch php7.3-bcmath php7.3-cgi php7.3-cli php7.3-common php7.3-fpm php7.3-json php7.3-mbstring php7.3-opcache php7.3-readline php7.3-xml python-ldb python3-apt python3-lxml screen sudo 62 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 33.8 MB of archives. After this operation, 15.3 MB disk space will be freed. Get:1 http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates/main armhf libapt-pkg5.0 armhf 1.8.2.2 [881 kB] Get:2 http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates/main armhf apt armhf 1.8.2.2 [1368 kB] Get:3 http://security.debian.org/debian-security buster/updates/main armhf libp11-kit0 armhf 0.23.15-2+deb10u1 [292 kB] ...but when I look at the list of current available updates the same packages are listed there.
So "sudo apt update && sudo apt upgrade" installs all the packages (again). After this only the "libapt-inst2.0 1.8.2.2" package is still shows as upgradable, and "apt clean && apt install libapt-inst2.0" solves the problem for it.
However, the above situation happens again after next run of the cron for automatic security updates.
-
.... After this only the "libapt-inst2.0 1.8.2.2" package is still shows as upgradable, and "apt clean && apt install libapt-inst2.0" solves the problem for it.
However, the above situation happens again after next run of the cron for automatic security updates.
I had exactly the same scenario.
"apt clean && apt install libapt-inst2.0" helped
This happened at least 3 times to me. At least it's one line clean up instead of many
Thx
-
Yes, same here. It only seems to have been in the last week for me, although my installation is about 3 months old.
Jetzt mitmachen!
Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!