Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

Maki · 2016-04-25 12:40:53

So there used to be a script on the CrunchBang forums which allowed one to upgrade their system to BunsenLabs easily (while maintaining existing configuration as much as possible), but that hasn't worked in ages anymore.
I need a way to upgrade an existing CrunchBang installation to BunsenLabs since I still have three computers running it and they're set up fine, but there are some issues popping up with old- or unsupported- software.
A clean install is out of the question. Can anyone help me with this?

damo · 2016-04-25 13:19:01

Maki wrote:

...
A clean install is out of the question. Can anyone help me with this?

You may be out of luck then sad However, have a look at these threads....

Change to Bunsenlabs
Upgrade #! Waldorf to Debian jessie

NB The CB repos are off-line; the BL file structures are different, so that many cb scripts and configs will break unless you manually change filepaths; some of your installed apps, eg the #! tint2, will be broken; BL uses lightdm, not slim, as the login manager; etc.

You should seriously consider a re-install - it is likely to be much less painful.

Maki · 2016-04-25 15:09:54

damo wrote:

Maki wrote:
...
A clean install is out of the question. Can anyone help me with this?
You may be out of luck then However, have a look at these threads....
Change to Bunsenlabs
Upgrade #! Waldorf to Debian jessie
NB The CB repos are off-line; the BL file structures are different, so that many cb scripts and configs will break unless you manually change filepaths; some of your installed apps, eg the #! tint2, will be broken; BL uses lightdm, not slim, as the login manager; etc.
You should seriously consider a re-install - it is likely to be much less painful.

A clean install is out of the question, unfortunately. I really need some docu to explain just what is different exactly so I can do this manually. Headaches are the least of my problems with this. sad

xaos52 · 2016-04-25 15:46:24

Maki wrote:

A clean install is out of the question, unfortunately.

Why?

damo · 2016-04-25 15:47:12

Maki wrote:

....
A clean install is out of the question, unfortunately.

How so?

I really need some docu to explain just what is different exactly so I can do this manually. Headaches are the least of my problems with this.

There is no specific "documentation" of differences - just information scattered through the forums.

Example differences: repositories, skel, lightdm and user setup, scripts for configuration, application versions, the welcome script, image filepaths. BL is using the CB "philosophy", general behaviour and looks, but it isn't an upgrade of Crunchbang - it is different under-the-hood.

If you insist on not installing BL, then work through the links I posted: ie: upgrade to jessie and do any fixes necessary, then try to add the BL configuration (the BL files are available on github).

db2dba · 2016-04-25 20:03:15

It seems at least a 50% probability the "unsupported software" problems are more related to Debian than they are related to #! So the question that came up for me when I read this,

I need a way to upgrade an existing CrunchBang installation to BunsenLabs since I still have three computers running it and they're set up fine, but there are some issues popping up with old- or unsupported- software.

was... "what issues are you having?". Could you provide some examples?

ohnonot · 2016-04-26 06:40:18

Maki,
what you want is possible. maybe no 100% guarantee of success, but i did it once and it worked.
i think the logical way to go at this is:

crunchbang => debian wheezy (oldstable) => debian jessie (stable) => bunsenlabs.

fwiw, there's nothing wrong with disabling crunchbang repos & continuing using the machine as a debian oldstable machine. less work, and depending on the age of the hardware, it might even be better that way.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-04-26 07:03:10

ohnonot wrote:

there's nothing wrong with disabling crunchbang repos & continuing using the machine as a debian oldstable machine.

^ This.

Note that wheezy vulnerabilities are now handled by the LTS team rather than the official Debian security channels.

@Maki:

Have you disabled the #! repositories?

AFAIK, they are no longer active and unless you disable them you will not be receiving security updates & bug fixes from Debian.

ghorvath · 2016-04-26 07:29:35

@Maki I have managed to track debian wheezy after the crunchbang repos went offline. The guide I used was pvsage's post (2015-03-02 10:08:47) from this thread: http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=437311

After this, I have installed the debian-security-support package so that I would know if there are any packages not maintained by the security support. So far nothing has popped (I think wheezy is supported until May by debian people, and for two more years by lts people). So no need to immediately upgrade to debian jessie.

Anyway, with this method you do not need to do a complete reinstall, and you do not need to completely upgrade to jessie, either. This is sort of a middle way, until you make proper backups from your machines and maybe do a clean install after that. As far as I understand, the final stable version of BL is soon to hit the web, so might want to wait for that anyway.

Sector11 · 2016-04-26 13:22:37

@Maki:

What ohnonot, Head_on_a_Stick and ghorvath said about running "old Stable - Wheezy" - good stuff!

It's what my install #! is at the moment. I call it #! "Wheezy" vs #! "Waldorf".

And as ghorvath points out pvsage's advice regarding "tint2" is not to be missed.

Images below: Both taken within minutes of each other - on the same computer - different partitions, although both use the same conky's, wallpapers and other files found on /media/5

#! Wheezy - and - BunsenLabs

NOTE: #! Wheezy is using tint2 and BL is using fbpanel - bottom centre in the conky.

To clarify HoaS's point: ie: Make it perfectly clear: The #! repos are no longer active.

Last edited by Sector11 (2016-04-26 13:50:41)

Maki · 2016-04-26 13:33:42

db2dba wrote:

It seems at least a 50% probability the "unsupported software" problems are more related to Debian than they are related to #! So the question that came up for me when I read this,
I need a way to upgrade an existing CrunchBang installation to BunsenLabs since I still have three computers running it and they're set up fine, but there are some issues popping up with old- or unsupported- software.
was... "what issues are you having?". Could you provide some examples?

Mainly the outdated xscreensaver which keeps showing warnings, and some packages refuse to update because older software is using the older versions of them. Some Crunchbang software is not in the Debian repos, and Bunsen seems to deviate from CrunchBang's earlier setup (i.e. using light-locker & lightdm instead of xscreensaver) which is utterly confusing.

ohnonot · 2016-04-26 17:12:19

Maki wrote:

Mainly the outdated xscreensaver which keeps showing warnings

oh no, not again!
that has nothing to do with your particular situation.
it is actually the developer of xscreensaver showing antisocial behavior.
lots of complaints & ugly discussions around the issue.
you don't really need xscreensaver (unless you like the eyecandy so much?). just uninstall it and be done with it.

some packages refuse to update because older software is using the older versions of them. Some Crunchbang software is not in the Debian repos, and Bunsen seems to deviate from CrunchBang's earlier setup (i.e. using light-locker & lightdm instead of xscreensaver) which is utterly confusing.

as i outlined the steps before, have you taken the first already? you have to do it in that order.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-04-26 17:19:12

Maki wrote:

Mainly the outdated xscreensaver which keeps showing warnings

The warning "easter egg" (as the package maintainer calls it) has been removed from the jessie xscreensaver package and will no longer nag the user about something over which they have little control.

See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo … 819703#494

Maki · 2016-09-15 14:55:55

Necroing my own thread, but it needed an update:

I am trying to work through the differences between #! and BL. Considering BL is a continuation from #! I had expected some documentation of the changes made between the two, and especially why certain software was replaced by others. I dislike lightdm, but it seems fairly integrated in the BL config. Light-locker is also returned to my custom BL configs with each update, so I make copies of all changed configs now so I can manually return it to using xscreensaver. I can't expect BL to use my changes, but I'll be keeping my lappy running a butchered #! for now until I can figure out how to fiddle that back to slim. I may need to figure out how to entirely replace the BL configs at this point, although my biggest peeves really are light-locker vs xscreensaver, the use of lightdm, and the overuse of pipemenus compared to #! (I'd much rather open Geany to make changes to openbox' XML than try to figure out how to change a pipemenu without breaking it).

So yes, personal choice and all that. Just updating what I'm doing - and I'm going to consider the thread closed since I'll muddy on with it on my own.

damo · 2016-09-15 15:32:43

Maki wrote:

.... Considering BL is a continuation from #! I had expected some documentation of the changes made between the two, and especially why certain software was replaced by others.

BL is the "community continuation" of the spirit, philosphy and looks of #! Discussion about software choices was pretty extensive on the Crunchbang forums at the time, which is still available for perusal.

I dislike lightdm, but it seems fairly integrated in the BL config. Light-locker is also returned to my custom BL configs with each update, so I make copies of all changed configs now so I can manually return it to using xscreensaver. I can't expect BL to use my changes, but I'll be keeping my lappy running a butchered #! for now until I can figure out how to fiddle that back to slim. I may need to figure out how to entirely replace the BL configs at this point, although my biggest peeves really are light-locker vs xscreensaver, the use of lightdm, and the overuse of pipemenus compared to #! (I'd much rather open Geany to make changes to openbox' XML than try to figure out how to change a pipemenu without breaking it).

There was a lot of dislike for xscreensaver and the idiosyncracies of its developer (now sorted out AFAIK);

SLIM development had been discontinued, and lightdm is the DM of choice for many distros. I personally preferred slim as well;

What changes would you need to make to the pipemenus? The entries are easily configured in '.config/openbox/pipemenus.rc', which is designed to be much easier for new users, instead of having to edit menu.xml. It is a kind of halfway house method to show some available software without having to include it in the iso. LO and GIMP for example.

So yes, personal choice and all that.....

Yep, just like Crunchbang wink

Maki · 2016-09-15 18:57:48

I'll muddy on.

Last edited by Maki (2016-09-15 18:59:53)

barnabyh · 2016-09-15 22:38:43

I guess it's ok to point you to another distro on this forum, which you might like/ might meet your needs more.

Bear in mind, I have not used nor investigated it but it seems a bit trimmer in terms of pipemenus and such. That may be more to your liking. It's a netinstall, no live session to explore, so it would probably be a good idea to do a VM install of the old Crunchbang and try upgrade from there to find out how it works.

Saying that, unless your machines are 32-bit and you want Chromium browser, which is not supported anymore, I would stick with Waldorf as long as it's lts supported. So far I've found nothing amiss with it. Not in the default configuration on a laptop with no services running.

Worked around the Chromium issue by installing Vivaldi (great browser) and keeping an outdated Chromium around just for access to bookmarks.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2016-09-16 06:22:53

+1 for #++

I think that may be better suited to Maki's needs.

Or perhaps a minimal Debian jessie netinstall & "roll your own"?

damo · 2017-02-01 10:41:22

GreenMartian wrote:

Sector11,
How did you get that nice transparency in your menu?
Thanks,
GM

Preferences -> Compositor -> Edit Compositing Settings; change "menu-opacity = 1.0;" ; restart compositor

#1 2016-04-25 12:40:53

Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#2 2016-04-25 13:19:01

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#3 2016-04-25 15:09:54

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#4 2016-04-25 15:46:24

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#5 2016-04-25 15:47:12

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#6 2016-04-25 20:03:15

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#7 2016-04-26 06:40:18

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#8 2016-04-26 07:03:10

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#9 2016-04-26 07:29:35

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#10 2016-04-26 13:22:37

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#11 2016-04-26 13:33:42

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#12 2016-04-26 17:12:19

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#13 2016-04-26 17:19:12

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#14 2016-09-15 14:55:55

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#15 2016-09-15 15:32:43

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#16 2016-09-15 18:57:48

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#17 2016-09-15 22:38:43

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#18 2016-09-16 06:22:53

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

#19 2017-02-01 10:41:22

Re: Help: Upgrade existing CrunchBang Waldorf to BunsenLabs?

Board footer