NetBSD Problem Report #58392

From kimmo@suominen.org  Wed Jul  3 06:23:30 2024
Return-Path: <kimmo@suominen.org>
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [199.233.217.200])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)
	 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
	(Client CN "mail.NetBSD.org", Issuer "mail.NetBSD.org CA" (not verified))
	by mollari.NetBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FD081A923A
	for <gnats-bugs@gnats.NetBSD.org>; Wed,  3 Jul 2024 06:23:30 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <20240703062326.14FD91077B@revolutions.gw.fi>
Date: Wed,  3 Jul 2024 09:23:26 +0300 (EEST)
From: kim@netbsd.org (Kimmo Suominen)
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Subject: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
X-Send-Pr-Version: 3.95

>Number:         58392
>Category:       install
>Synopsis:       sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       high
>Responsible:    martin
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Jul 03 06:25:00 +0000 2024
>Last-Modified:  Wed Jul 03 14:20:02 +0000 2024
>Originator:     Kimmo Suominen
>Release:        NetBSD 10.99.11
>Organization:
>Environment:
System: NetBSD revolutions.gw.fi 10.99.11 NetBSD 10.99.11 (GENERIC) #0: Mon Jul 1 12:09:52 UTC 2024 mkrepro@mkrepro.NetBSD.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC amd64
Architecture: x86_64
Machine: amd64
>Description:

	Upgrading 10.99.10 (202403310300Z) to 10.99.11 (202407011310Z)
	fails with the following error:

	    Release set base32 does not exist.

	I then chose the "Skip set" option and continued the upgrade.
	After more sets were installed, the following messages were
	displayed:

	    You selected 19 distribution sets.  1 sets couldn't be found
	    and 1 were skipped after an error occurred.  Of the 18
	    that were attempted, 18 unpacked without errors and 0 with
	    errors.

	    Aborting installation.  Please recheck your distribution
	    source and consider reinstalling sets from the main menu.

	After hitting enter to continue, sysinst still continued with
	steps that I would have expected (such as running postinstall
	and installing boot blocks).  It remains unclear what was not
	done due to the installation having been aborted.

	It would be nice if the messages could be more specific as to
	what was not done, and also more accurately indicate if the "not
	found" and "skipped after an error occurred" sets overlap (like
	they did in this case).

>How-To-Repeat:

	Download the ISO image and boot it.  Then select to upgrade the system
	using the install media as the source for the sets.

>Fix:

>Release-Note:

>Audit-Trail:
From: Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: install/58392: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 09:29:01 +0200

 On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:25:00AM +0000, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
 > >How-To-Repeat:
 > 
 > 	Download the ISO image and boot it.  Then select to upgrade the system
 > 	using the install media as the source for the sets.

 Which ISO image is that?

 Martin

From: Kimmo Suominen <kim@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: install/58392: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:17:50 +0300

 On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 07:30:02AM +0000, Martin Husemann wrote:
 >  Which ISO image is that?

 What is the additional identifying information you are looking for?

 This is what I've provided so far:

   >Release:        NetBSD 10.99.11
   >Environment:
   Architecture: x86_64
   >Description:
 	Upgrading [...] to 10.99.11 (202407011310Z)
 				     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Kind regards,
 + Kimmo

From: Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: install/58392: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 10:28:04 +0200

 On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 08:20:02AM +0000, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
 >  What is the additional identifying information you are looking for?

 Something like a download link for the exact image used (if it was
 from autobuild) or the build.sh invocation and path where the image
 was created.

 Martin

From: Kimmo Suominen <kim@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: install/58392: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 12:01:34 +0300

 On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 08:30:02AM +0000, Martin Husemann wrote:
 >  On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 08:20:02AM +0000, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
 >  >  What is the additional identifying information you are looking for?
 >  
 >  Something like a download link for the exact image used (if it was
 >  from autobuild)

 The BUILD ID date is not sufficient?

 The way I would reconstruct the link from that is:

     https://nycdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/
     HEAD/			<-- since version is 10.99.*
     202407011310Z/		<-- the timestamp
     images/
     NetBSD-10.99.11-amd64.iso	<-- translate from x86_64

 I don't see the link in /etc/release, but if it is available on an
 installed system somewhere, please let me know.

 I run an automated process that first resolves the "latest" link on
 nycdn.n.o and then downloads from the discovered link, so the actual
 link used to download the ISO image depends on the responses provided by
 the web server at the time of download.  I don't record that output, as
 the process is run repeatedly to check for and download new images.

 If there is additional information in /etc/release (or some other
 source) that would be helpful, send-pr(1) should also try to include it
 in the report.

 If there is additional necessary information that is not yet available
 on an installed system, we should think of a way to have it provided
 in the future.  For example, sysinst(8) could store the install media
 location somewhere, or in the case of ISO images copy some identifying
 information provided on the image itself.  Then send-pr(1) could include
 it in the problem report.

 Kind regards,
 + Kimmo

From: Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: install/58392: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:32:47 +0200

 On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:05:01AM +0000, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
 >      images/
 >      NetBSD-10.99.11-amd64.iso	<-- translate from x86_64

 Thanks, this is the information I was looking for (I don't know if
 for x86_64 the translation is unique off hand, but for most architectures
 it is not).

 I don't understand why base32.tar.xz is missing here.

 Martin

From: "J. Hannken-Illjes" <hannken@mailbox.org>
To: NetBSD GNATS <gnats-bugs@netbsd.org>,
 Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: install/58392: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 11:51:21 +0200

 > On 3. Jul 2024, at 11:35, Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de> wrote:
 > I don't understand why base32.tar.xz is missing here.

 Because file "distrib/amd64/cdroms/installcd/Makefile" has:

 	CDRELEASE_NOCOMPAT=3Dtrue

 For an install with compat/debug sets there is =
 "NetBSD-10.99.11-amd64-dvd.iso".

 --
 J. Hannken-Illjes - hannken@mailbox.org=

Responsible-Changed-From-To: install-manager->martin
Responsible-Changed-By: martin@NetBSD.org
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed, 03 Jul 2024 10:02:09 +0000
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Sysinst needs to learn how to deal with CDRELEASE_NOCOMPAT


From: Kimmo Suominen <kim@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: install/58392: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 17:07:33 +0300

 On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:55:01AM +0000, J. Hannken-Illjes wrote:
 >  For an install with compat/debug sets there is =
 >  "NetBSD-10.99.11-amd64-dvd.iso".

 Thanks, I've switched to downloading the dvd image where one is
 available.

 Kind regards,
 + Kimmo

From: Kimmo Suominen <kim@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: install/58392: sysinst upgrade to 10.99.11 fails
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 17:17:30 +0300

 On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:35:01AM +0000, Martin Husemann wrote:
 >  On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 09:05:01AM +0000, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
 >  >      images/
 >  >      NetBSD-10.99.11-amd64.iso	<-- translate from x86_64
 >  
 >  Thanks, this is the information I was looking for (I don't know if
 >  for x86_64 the translation is unique off hand, but for most architectures
 >  it is not).

 That information is included in the report template as well:

     >Environment:
     Machine: amd64

 Kind regards,
 + Kimmo

>Unformatted:

Home	PR Database Search