/usr/local/sbin/pfSense-upgrade deletions
-
Was on 2.4.5.r.20200225.2100 and going to 2.4.5.r.20200229.0000
Web config updates failing
console updates failing; from console at least got an error message:/bin/sh: cannot open /usr/local/sbin/pfSense-upgrade: No such file or directory
Just sort of stabbing in the dark:
touch pfSense-upgrade chmod +x pfSense-upgrade
Obviously the above didn't work, console upgrade still did nothing; but no error message this time.
/cf/conf/upgrade_log.latest.txt has nothing new since several days ago bumping up to 225.2100
No errors or mentions of deleting the update fileSystem ceased finding new updates after 0000 timeframe.
Did a fresh install, and bumping 2.4.4p3 to 2.4.5.r.20200229.0900 also wound up deleting the file.
So I've got two instances of update attempts in a row that deleted the update file. Kind of a bummer.For the record the original contents of the file in 2.4.4p3 are below, but I'm guessing it got deleted during an attempted update so ymmv:
#!/bin/sh # # pfSense-upgrade.wrapper # # part of pfSense (https://www.pfsense.org) # Copyright (c) 2015-2016 Rubicon Communications, LLC (Netgate) # All rights reserved. # # Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); # you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. # You may obtain a copy of the License at # # http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 # # Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software # distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, # WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. # See the License for the specific language governing permissions and # limitations under the License. pfsense_upgrade=$(realpath -q $(dirname $0)/../libexec/$(basename $0)) lockfile="/tmp/$(basename $0).lock" if [ ! -f ${pfsense_upgrade} ]; then echo "ERROR: Unable to find ${pfsense_upgrade}" exit 1 fi if [ "$(id -u)" -ne "0" ]; then echo "ERROR: It must run as root" exit 1 fi # lockf return codes, from sysexits(3) EX_TEMPFAIL=75 # The specified lock file was already locked by another process. EX_CANTCREAT=73 # The lockf utility was unable to create the lock file, e.g., # because of insufficient access privileges. EX_OSERR=71 # A system call (e.g., fork(2)) failed unexpectedly. EX_SOFTWARE=70 # The command did not exit normally, but may have been signaled # or stopped. # Special return code to detect when pfSense-upgrade was upgraded and must # be called again to make sure latest version is running EX_UPGRADE=99 while true; do unset run_again /usr/bin/lockf -s -t 5 ${lockfile} ${pfsense_upgrade} "$@" rc=$? unset error case "$rc" in ${EX_TEMPFAIL}) echo "Another instance is already running... Aborting!" exit $EX_TEMPFAIL ;; ${EX_CANTCREAT}) echo "ERROR: Unable to create lockfile ${lockfile}" exit $EX_CANTCREAT ;; ${EX_OSERR}) echo "ERROR: An unexpected OS error happened" error=$EX_OSERR ;; ${EX_SOFTWARE}) echo "ERROR: An unexpected error happened" error=$EX_SOFTWARE ;; ${EX_UPGRADE}) run_again=1 ;; esac [ -f "${lockfile}" ] \ && rm -f ${lockfile} [ -n "${error}" ] \ && exit $error [ -n "${run_again}" ] \ && continue exit $rc done
-
Same issue I'm seeing.
trying to go from 2.4.5.r.20200226.1800 to 2.4.5.r.20200228.1800/bin/sh: cannot open /usr/local/sbin/pfSense-upgrade: No such file or directory
Any idea how to get fix?
-
Looks like it's known about - https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/10303
-
Thanks for pointing me there. The suggested workaround steps worked for me.
pkg update && pkg upgrade -y
-
Confirm seems to have completed a valid update cycle this time.
I didn't test the webconfig.went from 2.4.4p3 to 0229.1500 successfully with the pkg update && pkg upgrade -y and a manual reboot.
-
@skogs Solved my issue Thank you
-
Also seeing this in current 2.4.5 and 2.5 snapshots. I was also able to recover by running
pkg upgrade
manually.We are looking into this.
Steve
-
Hit this as well. Recourse was to manually install again and recover from xml backup. (Did that before seeing this)
-
See https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/10303
The better fix, for those who hit it already, is to run
pkg install pfSense-upgrade
It's been addressed in the repo, so if you didn't hit it yet, you shouldn't hit it now when upgrading.
-
@skogs said in /usr/local/sbin/pfSense-upgrade deletions:
pkg update && pkg upgrade -y
pkg install pfSense-upgrade
Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue...
Fetching meta.txz: 100% 944 B 0.9kB/s 00:01
Fetching packagesite.txz: 100% 2 KiB 1.8kB/s 00:01
Processing entries: 100%
pfSense-core repository update completed. 7 packages processed.
Updating pfSense repository catalogue...
Fetching meta.txz: 100% 940 B 0.9kB/s 00:01
Fetching packagesite.txz: 100% 141 KiB 10.3kB/s 00:14
Processing entries: 100%
pfSense repository update completed. 522 packages processed.
All repositories are up to date.
Updating database digests format: 100%
The following 1 package(s) will be affected (of 0 checked):New packages to be INSTALLED:
pfSense-upgrade: 0.79 [pfSense]Number of packages to be installed: 1
13 KiB to be downloaded.
Proceed with this action? [y/N]: y
[1/1] Fetching pfSense-upgrade-0.79.txz: 100% 13 KiB 13.7kB/s 00:01
Checking integrity... done (0 conflicting)
[1/1] Installing pfSense-upgrade-0.79...
[1/1] Extracting pfSense-upgrade-0.79: 100%
[2.4.5-RC][admin@face]/root: pfSense-upgrade -6
pfSense-upgrade: Command not found. -
When you install a new program like that, you have to type
rehash
or exit and re-enter the shell. -
pfSense-upgrade -6
Updating repositories metadata...
Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue...
pfSense-core repository is up to date.
Updating pfSense repository catalogue...
Fetching meta.txz: . done
Fetching packagesite.txz: .... done
pkg-static: https://pkg.pfsense.org/pfSense_v2_4_5_amd64-pfSense_v2_4_5/packagesite.txz: Operation timed out
Unable to update repository pfSense
Error updating repositories! -
This thread is not for problems like that. It's for the specific issue of
pfSense-upgrade
getting removed.Start a new thread.
-
use this command is good for upgarde.
pkg update && pkg upgrade -y -
See above, that is not the recommended procedure.
Locking this, it's been solved already.