Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    check_upgrade: "Updating repositories metadata" returned error code 1

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Problems Installing or Upgrading pfSense Software
    195 Posts 46 Posters 34.0k Views 42 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • stephenw10S Offline
      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
      last edited by

      OK that seems fine. You might try: pkg-static -d update

      But I would expect pfSense-upgrade to throw an error if that does.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S Offline
        stevo11811
        last edited by

        It seems to be fixed this morning on all firewalls I was having trouble with.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • stephenw10S Offline
          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
          last edited by

          Ah good to hear.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • JeGrJ Offline
            JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator @stephenw10
            last edited by JeGr

            @stephenw10 said in check_upgrade: "Updating repositories metadata" returned error code 1:

            Do you have the output error shown by lldpd?

            It's likely the same as pkg itself, an elf error because of ld.so mismatch due to wrong version of a library. I think it was either libc.so.7 or libssl.so.30 or one among those lines. It'd surely be easy to reproduce when you have a 25.07 VM and manually upgrade pkg to 2.x.x instead of 1.12.5.

            Edit:

            [25.07.1-RELEASE][admin@pfs-plus-2507.lab.test]/root: pkg info
            ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libutil.so.10" not found, required by "pkg"
            
            [25.07.1-RELEASE][admin@pfs-plus-2507.lab.test]/root: lldpd
            ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libutil.so.10" not found, required by "libpkg.so.4"
            

            after manually force-down installing pkg to 1.12.5 again, the errors also stopped.

            Cheers

            Don't forget to upvote ๐Ÿ‘ those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

            If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stephenw10S Offline
              stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
              last edited by

              But those libs are not updated when pkg gets upgraded. That;s why the new pkg fails to run unless it's run with statically linked libs. So I wouldn't expect anything else to be affected unless that was also upgraded. But, yes, let me confirm....

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S Offline
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                Hmm, OK. Let me try to replicate that....

                JeGrJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • JeGrJ Offline
                  JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator @stephenw10
                  last edited by JeGr

                  @stephenw10 said in check_upgrade: "Updating repositories metadata" returned error code 1:

                  Hmm, OK. Let me try to replicate that....

                  I did that 5min ago, so it does indeed hang on libutil or some other it seems ;)

                  Anyway it's one of the dependency libs that PKG and LLDPd share that seems to be borked whenever pkg is "over-updating" itself. ldd shows a LOT they have in common. I forgot to make a ldd-run before and after, that should have shown some light into it.

                  Don't forget to upvote ๐Ÿ‘ those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

                  If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • stephenw10S Offline
                    stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                    last edited by

                    Ok I can see how this would break it but, for some reason, I'm now failing to replicate it. Digging....

                    JeGrJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • JeGrJ Offline
                      JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator @stephenw10
                      last edited by

                      @stephenw10 I did it this way:

                      • used a 25.07.1 VM
                      • set update path to 25.11
                      • forced install of pkg with pkg install -f pkg
                      • --> pkg 2.3.x installed
                      • immediatly afterwards, running of pkg fails because of dependencies
                      • lldpd now also fails with the same reasons

                      Yes I know, normally one wouldn't force pkg to install a new version but that's what now has happened to various systems twice. Once in a beta build or when the first RC came out? and once now at the beginning of that thread. Every time we checked, pkg has updated itself to a new 2.x.x version and thus threw errors and lldpd died. So something seems to have triggered a pkg upgrade to a newer version even if 25.07 was selected fixed as install path.

                      Cheers :)

                      Don't forget to upvote ๐Ÿ‘ those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

                      If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stephenw10S Offline
                        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                        last edited by

                        Ah, yes that would do it! I was trying to replicate the unexpected update which I've so far been unable to. I suspect this was entirely down to the backend changes last week which have since been corrected. I'll keep monitoring it.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.