I had some trouble to start my computer... three times. Letting it sleep for a day, it is now booting almost normally.

Therefore, I decide to do sudo eopck check and I got the following broken packages:

ntfs-3g
coreutils
mdadm
shadow
attr
wpa_supplicant
cifs-utils
zsh
cpio
util-linux
kmod
e2fsprogs
bash
systemd
grep
sed
nfs-utils
fuse2
iproute2
glibc
tar
acl
tcsh
iptables
audit
apparmor
bzip2

I see some 'sensitive' librairies I think (glibc, bash, systemd).
I tried to reinstall then with the French equivalent of:
sudo eopkg check | grep 'Broken' | awk '{print $4}' | xargs sudo eopkg it --reinstall
(clearly: sudo eopkg check | grep 'Cassé' | awk '{print $5}' | xargs sudo eopkg it --reinstall)

The system tells me it is ok, everything installed. But when I do again sudo eopkg check, I still have those packages tagged as 'Broken'.
I told me maybe I add corrupted files in my cache:

  • I empty the eopkg cache (sudo eopkg dc)
  • I rerun previous operation (reinstallation of broken packages)

And they are still tagged as 'Broken' when I do a sudo eopkg check.

Are they really still Broken or not yet updated because used by current system?

  • If yes, will a reboot solve the issue?
  • If no, how do I repair these packages please?

May you help me to find a solution please?
Thank you in advance.

Note: I am quite surprised to find broken packages after an upgrade because I have not seen error messages during the process (except maybe warning on configuration files not modified). Do I need to systematically check for broken packages after an upgrade?)

This is the result of a general issue in connection with the attempted usr-merge a few weeks ago. The packages are fine, but will show up as broken due to a symlink issue. For more details see this thread: https://discuss.getsol.us/d/10599-temporary-blocking-of-updates-now-unblocked/

In particular: https://discuss.getsol.us/d/10599-temporary-blocking-of-updates-now-unblocked/36
and: https://discuss.getsol.us/d/10599-temporary-blocking-of-updates-now-unblocked/62

So those packages will keep showing up as broken until the situation is completely resolved. This is nothing to worry about however.

Thank you for this complete answer.

a month later

Just an update. From 27 displayed as broken packages, we are now at 3:

linux-lts
apparmor
linux-current

not the same packages as you will notice

budgie: 10.9.2
Solus 4.5 Resilience
kernel: Linux 6.9.10-295.current

JTCPingas

Thanks for jour reply,
But Sorry Broken packages or Broken updates are a major problem for an OS and typically in a Rolling Distro ...
I'm using Solus since Solus 3 ( 2018 ) for sensitive jobs ( and Linux professionnaly since 1993 after I moved from Unix )...
Now I'm not sure any more concerning what to do with Solus : Will Solus brake again ? and why not blocking upgrades deployement as long as not fully tested ...
I had to back Up 1.4 To of ultra-sensible datas, to kill my Solus that I could not fix and I had to replace Solus by one of my RHEL licences ... So Sad to be back to Gnome and instutitionnal distros ...

Still using Solus Budgie as it is a so lovely user friendly distro but for fun purpose only and not any-more for big Jobs.
Very Sad again...

Explaining is not enough and does not matter in fact as the purpose of an non experimental distro is reliability & stability.

I'm pleased to use iNTEL ClearLinux OS as an experimental Distro but it seems now more stable than Solus, I hope this is wrong !

We need to have stable a Rolling Release again as Solus was before if we want users to go back to this so nice distro or if we want users to try it... Or at least having a Real Roll-Back facility as NixOS for instance, that would be the best solution.

We can easely get some of the numerous user who are massively quitting Ubuntu Desktop and Firefox & snap problems and who are looking for a good Distro, if we can propose a good, safe, stable and final version of Solus.

If your hear about Solus Now the main info given by analyst is : Do not use it yet as a D2D distro, First Wait and see what Solus wil be

Sad again

Best regards.

      SOLUS_INVICTUS We need to have stable a Rolling Release again as Solus was before if we want users to go back to this so nice distro or if we want users to try it... Or at least having a Real Roll-Back facility as NixOS for instance, that would be the best solution.

      To be honest and 'forthcoming' (as it says in the Matrix), I've had similar concerns for a while now. I use my Solus as the only daily OS for work and home. I simply cannot afford to chase down 'rabbit holes' even without a 'red pill'.

      In other words, if/when my system 'breaks' ie it needs repair or at worst, a reinstall, that is a too hard
      of a 'knock..knock...Neo'. I do not wish to 'follow the white rabbit', ever.

      I have considered Solus to be a stable and reliable personal OS since 2019.

      Long term stability is what I look for in a Linux distro, not how current its kernel is. Is it possible that the Solus dev team is too aggressive with the update schedule and its plans for 'world domination'?

      Why not, for instance, have updates which have been well tested, every 2nd or 3rd week, or hell, even once a month? Why every week?

      I am in no mad rush. I understand that security updates need to be applied at the earliest possibility. But other items? Does a 0.01 version difference make such a big difference to most users?

      I might be totally 'out of my depth', and do not have much inkling of technical issues and needs. Just echoing mine and another user's concerns here, since they have come up.

      Please, don't 'shoot the messenger' ! 😆

          elfprince I might be totally 'out of my depth', and do not have much inkling of technical issues and needs. Just echoing mine and another user's concerns here, since they have come up.

          you've spent years with BSD--you know 100X more than most of us🙂

          my own take is moss packages/new package manager is coming up quick and we are turning a major corner soon. so it's really just priorities. I hate seeing "broken" too,
          This explanation (official) seems clear to me:
          "The packages are not broken, the package check itself is not handling them correctly. This was mentioned above as eopkg check showing errors, and is expected.

          Basically eopkg sucks as a package manager (which is why we're replacing it) and due to it's constraints we found that satisfying all of the following was impossible:

          Allowing people who didn't upgrade to the Friday sync to update and have working systems
          Allowing people who did upgrade to the Friday sync to update and have working systems
          Having a "clean" eopkg check that succeeds for all packages.

          Given these constraints we chose the solution that satisfied the first two requirements. That means that eopkg check will show that certain packages (between 20 and 30 depending on what you have installed) are "broken" which is just because it can't handle how the symlinks on the system are setup, not because those packages are actually broken."

          Two months have passed...I'm guessing its manpower & priorities. I hope someone can confirm my hypothesis, because the list of 'broken' packages I have always makes me uneasy. The other part of me says "symlinks--the sky is not falling at all." We've seen the sky fall here another time.

          elfprince Long term stability is what I look for in a Linux distro, not how current its kernel is.

          me too.

          elfprince To be honest and 'forthcoming' (as it says in the Matrix), I've had similar concerns for a while now. I use my Solus as the only daily OS for work and home. I simply cannot afford to chase down 'rabbit holes' even without a 'red pill'.

          me too. It's easy to understand why Cypher went back for the taste of steak and a cocktail, that is for sure 😉.

          keeping the faith. my favorite scene out of about 100 favorite scenes:

                  brent taste of steak and a cocktail, that would be an Ubuntu flavour distro, right? 😆

                  Just to be clear, it is a hot day here in Winnipeg, and very humid. So, my brain is half molten. I might be speaking gibberish. This is not a statement for a specific issue, but a statement in general, trying to (barely) communicate my general and vague apprehension. Just shows how precious Solus is to me (and others).

                  As far as eopkg performance is concerned, it gets A++ so far. Hardly a cough through all these years. For me at least. All I am saying to the Team is 'pls take your sweet time with the work improving this special Linux OS.'

                  eof

                    I have no issues with the way Solus is Progressing.
                    How Much can they test something before releasing it to us if thats the case it would never get
                    released.
                    So some middle ground has to be given to progress forward.
                    If your a user that installs and just uses when a issue arises yer in for a rude awaking when things go south.
                    Have a recovery plan and Hop on the train for the ride.
                    My recovery is making disk images of the whole drive and keep them some what updated and also have just
                    important files backed up more often.
                    On the disk image is so important to test your method before putting it to use hopefully on a test system
                    So if I do need to recover its just a minor hiccup.

                    At some point They wont have to climb the Solus mountain and all the stuff in the past will be a memmory.

                    (Just thinking)

                    SOLUS_INVICTUS But Sorry Broken packages or Broken updates are a major problem for an OS and typically in a Rolling Distro ...

                    As explained above the packages are not actually broken and eopkg check was just misreporting them as such. This is behaviour has now been corrected (except for maybe the three packages mentioned above by @touzain).

                    SOLUS_INVICTUS Now I'm not sure any more concerning what to do with Solus : Will Solus brake again ? and why not blocking upgrades deployement as long as not fully tested ...

                    The updates were fine. Whether or not it would've had made sense to block updates until the check had been fixed, I don't know. eopkg check is not something that makes sense to run on a regular basis (in fact the average user shouldn't have to run it at all), so it doesn't seem like a particular severe issue to have a slightly wrong report for a week or two.

                    SOLUS_INVICTUS I'm pleased to use iNTEL ClearLinux OS as an experimental Distro but it seems now more stable than Solus, I hope this is wrong !

                    It's certainly more "stable" in the sense that it barely changes or receives significant updates these days (unless this has changed recently). Also as far as I know they were no longer focusing on desktop use-cases.

                          As was already pointed out multiple times now. Nothing is really broken. You are complaining about a error that has no actual impact on your system and is actually a symptom of changes made to make sure peoples systems continue working while we get the other needed pieces in place.

                          There are less packages being reported as broken recently because eopkg was updated to ignore certain things that are not actually broken although some things were overlooked in what to ignore and so its still incorrectly reporting an issue. This was purely a cosmetic change to stop people freaking out over nothing.

                          We are working on getting an epoch repo in place to ensure that everyone's systems must first update to a state where eopkg isn't completely stupid so it can handle the usr-merge safely. This requires a fair bit of work and testing.

                          So stop with the doom and gloom nonsense and actually read posts explaining issues. Nothing is actually broken.

                          A few things:

                          • For me, the term "Stable Rolling" is a bit an oxymoron. How can one thing be stay still but also moving? I think this is also the reason we don't call the "stable" repository as such, we call it shannon. Solus aims to be reliable and dependable, echoing its motto "Install today, Update forever".

                          • What is "well tested" mean? Taking more time to test something does not mean it will be always be better. What is needed are a good methodology and bigger sample size. More people running unstable repository (responsibly) would be nice. But also for people to take maintainership of the package they use. As someone who has been combing through the repository for months, It is sad how many packages were added to repository just to be abandoned.

                          • I just wanna reiterate what already said regarding this thread: Nothing is actually broken. Stop the doom and gloom.

                          Cheers!

                            alfisya For me, the term "Stable Rolling" is a bit an oxymoron. How can one thing be stay still but also moving? I think this is also the reason we don't call the "stable" repository as such, we call it shannon. Solus aims to be reliable and dependable, echoing its motto "Install today, Update forever".

                            Yeah, the issue is that there are two common definitions for "stable" floating around in the software world. One meaning "unchanging, or hardly changing", and the other (more colloquial) "not crashing, hardly any bugs, etc.".
                            Solus tries to fulfil the latter promise of course (within reason), but by its rolling nature can impossibly satisfy the former.

                            (well, I guess it could theoretically be a rolling release with hardly any major package updates, but then what's even the point?)

                              3 months later

                              Nothing tagged broken anymore since last release.

                              • Budgie 10.9.2
                              • Solus 4.6 Convergence
                              • Linux 6.11.5-307.current

                              Thank you for the information and developments.