[DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

brooh · 2025-07-02 06:15:00

thanks.........

Last edited by brooh (2025-07-02 06:15:16)

jimjamz · 2025-07-07 08:16:02

Thanks @johnraff. Apologies for the delay, but things have been hectic and I have not been able to even touch the BL Carbon test machine since my last post. I hope for things to get quieter so I can spend some more testing time on this. I may give the BL install another go, one attempt for each meta level, with the latest netinstall or a later release candidate, whichever the newer.

jimjamz · 2025-07-12 10:17:39

@johnraff, I am updating my local package lists I have, which are from May.
For distributions, I normally look at the control file in the bunsen-meta-all repo.
Seeing as we're testing, I'm using your pkg-norecs files from the bunsen-netinstall repo, for the 'base', 'lite' and 'all' install types.
Why are some of the packages commented out (not removed), such as this one?
Is it because they are currently incompatible, or you don't want it to be part of that install type?

When comparing the new package lists to my older ones from May, I noticed some of the packages have since been commented out (others added or removed). Nitrogen is an example in the base list that has since been commented out.

Some packages are completely removed rather than commented out, such as lame and libglib-2.0-bin. Why is there a difference?

As another example, the fonts-noto- family of packages are in the all list, commented out in the lite list, and simply don't appear in the base list.

Last edited by jimjamz (2025-07-12 10:22:01)

johnraff · 2025-07-13 02:56:41

When a package has been removed from the Debian repositories, with no likelihood of it returning, then I just delete it from the list.

Sometimes a package is tentatively replaced in BL with another one - in those cases I comment it out, so it serves as a reminder of what was done. Maybe a release or two later, packages which are no longer likely to be re-used are deleted.

fonts-noto's being commented out rather than deleted in the "lite" list just means there's a possibility they might go back some day. "base" being the absolute minimum, that doesn't arise.

The netinstall script allows comments. Up to now I've avoided them in debian control files, although they seem to be allowed.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about the difference too much.

jimjamz · 2025-07-13 06:23:27

Understood. That makes sense.
I gathered that after yesterday's message, when I noticed aptitude being commented out. By default, it's always included in the Debian (even nestinst) releases, so I expected yours was some kind of potential override if required.

I tested the base install last night; I found a couple of potential issues. I will try lite tonight then all.
I'll log the issues together.

Last edited by jimjamz (2025-07-13 06:25:18)

johnraff · 2025-07-13 07:02:32

aptitude is included in the "full" package list, but not in "light" or "base".
The "light" list is still rather tentative and there's scope for adding or removing packages...

Yes, it's to be expected there might be some issues with "base". Please report any you find and we'll see if there are some packages that have to go back.

Last edited by johnraff (2025-07-13 07:03:48)

jimjamz · 2025-07-15 06:39:04

@johnraff
I was able to test Carbon with meta -base, -lite and -all package lists, each time on a fresh install of Debian Trixie RC2 netinst.

BASE
Base was the only meta type I was able to install successfully. Here are some of the issues/observations I found:

01: jgmenu -> User Settings -> Appearance. When setting the Custom Look and Feel Widget to another theme than the default (e.g. bunsen-yaru-dark), this is reflected in some applications immediately (e.g. G Alternatives) but not in others (Thunar).
All Thunar processes have to be killed and restarted for the new theme to take effect.

02: Selecting the BL Media Player in jgmenu (either from jgmenu -> Media Player, or jgmenu -> All Applications -> Multimedia -> BL Media Player) does nothing. No application is started.

03. The exit dialog prompt (no bl-exit?) options all have the same bottle-with-green-liquid icon. Is this a placeholder?

LITE
Unfortunately, I could not install lite either from APT or a manual list of packages in a file.
When trying to install from the bunen-meta-lite package from the APT repositories, I got:

Package intel-microcode is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source

Package firmware-iwlwifi is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source

Package firmware-realtek is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source

Package firmware-linux is not available, but is referred to by another package.
This may mean that the package is missing, has been obsoleted, or
is only available from another source

Error: Unable to locate package #aptitude
Error: Unable to locate package #catfish
Error: Unable to locate package #filezilla
Error: Unable to locate package #firefox-esr
Error: Package 'firmware-iwlwifi' has no installation candidate
Error: Package 'firmware-linux' has no installation candidate
Error: Package 'firmware-realtek' has no installation candidate
Error: Unable to locate package #firmware-sof-signed
Error: Unable to locate package #fonts-cantarell
Error: Unable to locate package #fonts-noto
Error: Unable to locate package #fonts-noto-cjk
Error: Unable to locate package #fonts-noto-mono
Error: Unable to locate package #ftp-ssl
Error: Unable to locate package #geany
Error: Unable to locate package #geany-plugins
Error: Unable to locate package #gstreamer1.0-libav
Error: Unable to locate package #gstreamer1.0-plugins-bad
Error: Unable to locate package #gstreamer1.0-plugins-base
Error: Unable to locate package #gstreamer1.0-plugins-good
Error: Unable to locate package #gstreamer1.0-plugins-ugly
Error: Unable to locate package #gstreamer1.0-pulseaudio
Error: Unable to locate package #hexchat
Error: Unable to locate package #inotify-tools
Error: Package 'intel-microcode' has no installation candidate
Error: Unable to locate package #libreoffice-calc
Error: Unable to locate package #libreoffice-gtk3
Error: Unable to locate package #libreoffice-writer
Error: Unable to locate package #lxterminal
Error: Unable to locate package #mdadm
Error: Unable to locate package #nitrogen
Error: Unable to locate package #picom
Error: Unable to locate package #qt5-style-plugins
Error: Unable to locate package #thunar-media-tags-plugin
Error: Unable to locate package #tint2
Error: Unable to locate package #tumbler-plugins-extra
Error: Unable to locate package #vlc
Error: Unable to locate package #vlc-plugin-notify
Error: Unable to locate package #xfce4-appfinder
Error: Unable to locate package #xfce4-screenshooter

It seems there are several firmware packages that are not available and the install does not ignore commented out packages (is there an apt flag to ignore these?).

Unsatisfied dependencies:
 bunsen-meta-lite : Depends: firmware-iwlwifi but it is not installable
                    Depends: firmware-linux but it is not installable
                    Depends: firmware-realtek but it is not installable
                    Depends: intel-microcode but it is not installable
Error: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
Error: The following information from --solver 3.0 may provide additional context:
   Unable to satisfy dependencies. Reached two conflicting decisions:
   1. bunsen-meta-lite:amd64=13.0-11 is selected for install
   2. bunsen-meta-lite:amd64 Depends firmware-iwlwifi
      but none of the choices are installable:
      [no choices]

I made a file of the same lite package list, removing those not found in the above, and those commented out.
However, when I tried to install based on the list of packages in the file, I got:

Unsatisfied dependencies:
 gnutls-bin : Depends: libgnutls-dane0t64 (>= 3.7.0) but it is not installable
Error: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
Error: The following information from --solver 3.0 may provide additional context:
   Unable to satisfy dependencies. Reached two conflicting decisions:
   1. libgnustep-base1.31:amd64 is selected for install because:
      1. unar:amd64=1.10.8+ds1-9 is selected for install
      2. unar:amd64 Depends libgnustep-base1.31 (>= 1.31.1)
   2. libgnustep-base1.31:amd64 Depends gnutls-bin
      but none of the choices are installable:
      - gnutls-bin:amd64 Depends libgnutls-dane0t64 (>= 3.7.0)
        but none of the choices are installable:
        - libgnutls-dane0t64:amd64 Depends libgnutls30t64 (= 3.8.9-2)
          but none of the choices are installable:
          - libgnutls30t64:amd64=3.8.9-2 is not selected for install

ALL
This was similar situation for trying to install bunsen-meta-all from APT:

Unsatisfied dependencies:
 bunsen-meta-all : Depends: firmware-iwlwifi but it is not installable
                   Depends: firmware-linux but it is not installable
                   Depends: firmware-realtek but it is not installable
                   Depends: firmware-sof-signed but it is not installable
                   Depends: intel-microcode but it is not installable
                   Depends: unar but it is not going to be installed
Error: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
Error: The following information from --solver 3.0 may provide additional context:
   Unable to satisfy dependencies. Reached two conflicting decisions:
   1. libgnutls30t64:amd64=3.8.9-2 is not selected for install
   2. libgnutls30t64:amd64=3.8.9-2 is selected as a downgrade because:
      1. bunsen-meta-all:amd64=13.0-11 is selected for install
      2. bunsen-meta-all:amd64 Depends unar
      3. unar:amd64 Depends libgnustep-base1.31 (>= 1.31.1)
      4. libgnustep-base1.31:amd64 Depends gnutls-bin
      5. gnutls-bin:amd64 Depends libgnutls-dane0t64 (>= 3.7.0)
      6. libgnutls-dane0t64:amd64 Depends libgnutls30t64 (= 3.8.9-2)

Again, creating my own package list file based on the same and installing from that gave no better result.
It appears there still may be some dependency issues with some packages and the new Trixie RC2 netinst.

Last edited by jimjamz (2025-07-15 06:39:53)

johnraff · 2025-07-15 07:41:28

^Thanks for your detailed report here.

I'm a little confused whether you're referring to installing from the netinstall script or by installing a meta-package as you refer to both.

As to comments, they are allowed in the netinstall script lists, and in debian/control files but cannot be passed directly to apt, as you found. At present there are no comments in the control file of the bunsen-meta-* packages anyway.

To take the first missing package "Package intel-microcode is not available": https://packages.debian.org/trixie/intel-microcode the package is clearly available, in the non-free-firmware section. Could it be that your apt sources are missing some necessary components?

The Base install is very minimal and some trimmings are missing. An example is the "instant" updating of GTK themes, because bunsen-utilities is not installed with the bl-reload-gtk23 script.

The first thing to sort out is why you're getting all those missing packages reported. If you try a search here: https://www.debian.org/distrib/packages#search_packages you can check, but I suspect those packages are mostly present. Missing apt sources?

jimjamz · 2025-07-15 09:37:33

I'm not running your netinstall script, but I am using the pkg-norecs-${META_TYPE} files in that project when trying to manually install the packages from a file.

I've tried 2 approaches. First adding the Bunsen release key to apt, and using the Bunsen repository URL, install the bunsen-meta packages (either base, lite or all) using aptitude.

The other approach is to apt install with the aforementioned file that contains the list of packages.

I wasn't aware of the comments needing to be removed when trying to install via a file. Thanks.
As I already mentioned, I did remove them, but then still ran into further dependency issues.
I too was baffled by the intel-microcode not being a valid install candidate. I double-checked that I am setting the architecture to amd64 in the Bunsen sources.list, which I am.
It's too many obvious package dependency issues to be an upstream problem, unless there have been significant package changes in Trixie RC2.

johnraff · 2025-07-16 00:47:35

^Have you enabled contrib, non-free and non-free-firmware in the apt sources? The netinstall script would have done that for you, along with adding the key.

If using the metapackages, this guide for installing Boron might help, of course making all the necessary substitutions: boron > carbon, bookworm > trixie etc: https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=8437

jimjamz · 2025-07-18 14:14:16

That was it, @johnraff. Good spot!
I was missing the 'non-free-firmware' parameter in /etc/apt/sources.list

I create the sources.list for each distribution based on a template from some time ago and as part of my own scripts, customise it based on the parameters entered (debian codename, bunsen release name, architecture etc...) before copying it to the target directory.
'non-free-firmware' is a recent addition I'd missed.

I can confirm the meta-lite package installation now allows all of the packages to be installed.

Last edited by jimjamz (2025-07-18 14:14:54)

#21 2025-07-02 06:15:00

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#22 2025-07-07 08:16:02

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#23 2025-07-12 10:17:39

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#24 2025-07-13 02:56:41

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#25 2025-07-13 06:23:27

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#26 2025-07-13 07:02:32

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#27 2025-07-15 06:39:04

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#28 2025-07-15 07:41:28

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#29 2025-07-15 09:37:33

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#30 2025-07-16 00:47:35

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

#31 2025-07-18 14:14:16

Re: [DONE] Migration of BL packages to the Carbon repo has started

Board footer