apt-cdrom: better error when cdrom-arch != host-arch

[Rahul Raj]

Binary package hint: update-manager

1. md5 checksum for iso matches the download page: 76e5a5d4b704677744bd84e042c05b63 (md5sum <downloaded alternate iso>.
2. md5sum for individual files after mounting the iso gives "OK" for each file checked.
3. Tried zsync update for iso - it also reported that the checksum matches

Current installation: (uname -a)
Linux xxxxxx.xxxxxx.net 2.6.28-15-generic #52-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 9 10:49:34 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux

Installer:
#define DISKNAME Kubuntu 9.04 "Jaunty Jackalope" - Release amd64

Regards!

[Rahul Raj (rahul-raj)]

This is similar to #372340, which was left unanswered. However, that bug report was for the upgrade from 8.04 to 8.10, so this may or may not be a duplicate.

Do I need to do anything else?

[Michael Vogt (mvo)]

Thanks for your bugreport.

Could you please run:
$ uname -a
$ lsb_release -a
$ dpkg --print-architecture
$ sudo apt-cdrom add
and attach the full output?

[Michael Vogt (mvo)]

Hm, sorry. I see that you alread have the uname -a string, so the reason is that you downloaded a amd64 iso

#define DISKNAME Kubuntu 9.04 "Jaunty Jackalope" - Release amd64

But you run a i386 distro "i686 GNU/Linux".

Cheers,
 Michael

[Michael Vogt (mvo)]

This sounds like a better error output in cases like this is required.

[Michael Vogt (mvo)]

Hm, this is confusing, your system "uname -a" says i686 (on a amd64 kernel it says x86_64). Yet you say you have a amd64 install. What does "dpkg --print-architecture" output?

[Rahul Raj (rahul-raj)]

Dear Michael,

You are right!!. The architecture is i386 as you correctly pointed out (and as confirmed by "dpkg --print-architecture").

I had made a bootable usb drive from the alternate install iso for jaunty (the current setup) and had kept a copy of the iso for future use. Now it looks like I have retained the wrong iso image for jaunty. I had downloaded amd64 karmic solely on the basis of the iso that I had retained wheras I should have confirmed the architecture installed through the commands mentioned by you.

The second reason of relying on the amd64 iso was the numerous issues caused by i386 image, namely of trying to downgrade some packages in jaunty which led me to believe that I must have amd64 as downgrade in the new version did not make sense. I had to uninstall kontact and a few other packages to try and push the alternate install for i386 iso, yet it had failed citing dependency issues (pkg xxx is trying to write to yyyyyy, however <higher version from jaunty> is present or something) and kept failing by not being able to resolve archive.ubuntu.com in spite of choosing an offline install in the first dialog box. - I probably should have filed a bug report for that :( .

Thanks for pointing out.

Since both alternate installs are not working for me, I have initiated a full upgrade from the network :-(

Hopefully I will be on Karmic by tomorrow!

Thanks for the response.

Regards.

=======================================================
For reference, am putting the responses to the commands you have asked, maybe it will help someone else running a i386 kernel on amd64 cpu.

$ uname -a
Linux xxxxxx.xxxxxx.net 2.6.28-15-generic #52-Ubuntu SMP Wed Sep 9 10:49:34 UTC 2009 i686 GNU/Linux

$ lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description : Ubuntu 9.04
Release : 9.04
Codename : Jaunty

$ dpkg --print-architecture
i386

$ sudo apt-cdrom add -a
(I added the -a as I was not sure where it was looking for the cd - it asks for mounting the image in /cdrom/, post which it says no packages found on the medium)

[Victor Vargas (kamus)]

@Rahul, please could you check if this behaviour is still occurring in latest release included in Ubuntu Lucid or even better Maverick? Thanks.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for apt (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]