Linux Lite 3.6 Beta Released

[Jocklad]

Linux Lite 3.6x64 beta


Update error:

===========================
Install Updates Error log
===========================
Install Updates could not successfully download and install available updates.
Go to https://www.freecinema2022.gq/forums/ and paste the log below into a new or existing thread for assistance.


============ Log ===========


Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
Calculating upgrade...
The following packages will be upgraded:
  libsmbclient libwbclient0 python-samba samba samba-common samba-common-bin
  samba-dsdb-modules samba-libs samba-vfs-modules smbclient
10 to upgrade, 0 to newly install, 0 to remove and 0 not to upgrade.
1 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 8,589 kB/49.7 MB of archives.
After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used.
Get:1 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 smbclient amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [311 kB]
Get:2 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 samba-vfs-modules amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [256 kB]
Get:3 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 samba-dsdb-modules amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [215 kB]
Get:4 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 samba amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [903 kB]
Get:5 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 samba-common-bin amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [507 kB]
Get:6 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 python-samba amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [1,060 kB]
Get:7 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 samba-libs amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [5,169 kB]
Get:8 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 libwbclient0 amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [30.0 kB]
Get:9 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 libsmbclient amd64 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [53.3 kB]
Get:10 http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial-proposed/main amd64 samba-common all 2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10 [83.6 kB]
Preconfiguring packages ...
Fetched 8,589 kB in 5s (1,486 kB/s)
(Reading database ...
(Reading database ... 5%
(Reading database ... 10%
(Reading database ... 15%
(Reading database ... 20%
(Reading database ... 25%
(Reading database ... 30%
(Reading database ... 35%
(Reading database ... 40%
(Reading database ... 45%
(Reading database ... 50%
(Reading database ... 55%
(Reading database ... 60%
(Reading database ... 65%
(Reading database ... 70%
(Reading database ... 75%
(Reading database ... 80%
(Reading database ... 85%
(Reading database ... 90%
(Reading database ... 95%
(Reading database ... 100%
(Reading database ... 224700 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../smbclient_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking smbclient (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../samba-vfs-modules_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking samba-vfs-modules (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../samba-dsdb-modules_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking samba-dsdb-modules (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../samba_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking samba (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../samba-common-bin_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking samba-common-bin (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../python-samba_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking python-samba (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../samba-libs_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking samba-libs:amd64 (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../libwbclient0_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking libwbclient0:amd64 (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../libsmbclient_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking libsmbclient:amd64 (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Preparing to unpack .../samba-common_2%3a4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10_all.deb ...
Unpacking samba-common (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) over (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.9) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.5-1) ...
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.23-0ubuntu9) ...
Processing triggers for ureadahead (0.100.0-19) ...
ureadahead will be reprofiled on next reboot
Processing triggers for systemd (229-4ubuntu19) ...
Processing triggers for ufw (0.35-0ubuntu2) ...
dpkg: error processing package firefox (--configure):
package is in a very bad inconsistent state; you should
reinstall it before attempting configuration
Setting up samba-common (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up libwbclient0:amd64 (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up samba-libs:amd64 (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up libsmbclient:amd64 (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up smbclient (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up samba-vfs-modules (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up samba-dsdb-modules (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up python-samba (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up samba-common-bin (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Setting up samba (2:4.3.11+dfsg-0ubuntu0.16.04.10) ...
Processing triggers for libc-bin (2.23-0ubuntu9) ...
Errors were encountered while processing:
firefox
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)

[Jocklad]

Used Systemback to go back to my initial full install and re-updated.


System updating now with no errors. 

[Valtam]

I wasn't overly worried about this. Update errors can happen anytime. It doesn't directly point to an issue with the Beta. Do appreciate your feedback though JL.

Sent from my Mobile phone using Tapatalk

[newtusmaximus]

32 bit continues to work . No hitches so far.  Fuji V3405.

[TheDead]

I don't know if this is LL or Ubuntu related but I installed LL 3.6b x32 on an old 1GB Atom netbook this weekend without a problem, this time .

It had LL 2.8 x32 previouly (before v3) but I had to mess around with drivers quite a lot since the crappy Broadcom WiFi BC43xx gave a lot of problems at the time. Unfortunately, the HDD was needed in another computer so the Netbook was put in the closet Abyss.

Got my hand on a replacement HDD this weekend so I installed LL 3.6b. The WiFi card was not seen but using the ethernet I did the updates and LL gave me a choice of WiFi drivers so I Used the "Recommended" one and everything went A-1.

I did not benchmark LL 2.2 at the time so I don't know if 3.6 is better/faster on this Atom turtle though. :-P

-TheDead

[Valtam]

[member=6733]TheDead[/member] better Broadcom support from now on. There won't be an all-in-one solution for everyone, but will be better for more people.

[Jocklad]

Ref update error reported previously.


Have since found out this was due to a failing HDD enclosure.


It was nothing to do with LL 3.6 beta .


Jocklad  :

[Valtam]

Thanks JL

[humdinger70]

Hi. I noticed that the kernel in LL 3.6 will still be the 4.4 family. I'm assuming you're using an LTS kernel for stability. I thought you would be upgrading to a newer LTS kernel. Or are you waiting for LL 3.8 to do that?

FYI, a search I made shows that the 4.9 series is the next LTS kernel, with 4.14 to be the next one after that.

Link to that article: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n...LTS-Kernel

Been about 5 months since I posted this. Had not seen a response. Still curious on when the default kernel for LL will be upgraded to a newer version.

[Valtam]

We have stated numerous times that we have our custom kernels for people who need the newer ones. That is why your question went unanswered. I just assumed that most people knew that by now. Cheers