Package Manager empty, pkg upgrade, "libssl.so.30" not found

lifespeed

In my pfSense CE 2.7.0 upgrade, there are no packages listed in Package Manager. I don't know if the package manager failure was associated with the upgrade around 8/2023. DNS works, I'm not sure what else to check.

This doesn't look good, but I don't know what it means. I saw a forum post suggesting this as a test of repository access:

lifespeed

Perhaps I have the same problem as mentioned here, needing an upgrade to CE V2.7.1?

SteveITS

@lifespeed often the library error is from installing a package for a letter version, before updating pfSense. Try the link in that other thread, or
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/troubleshooting/upgrades.html#upgrade-not-offered-library-errors

lifespeed

@SteveITS I think I did just attempt to update pfBlockerNG. Would it really bork itself and try and install the pfBlockerNG for a version of pfSense later than my 2.7.0 version if l blindly clicked update? It doesn't version check?

I then tried temporarily enabling repository access per the command line in the thread above, and tried to update to 2.72. It failed spectacularly. Now pfSense isn't routing and not accessible from the web UI. My network is down, I'm reaching out to the forum via the candlelight of cellular internet. At this point I've prepared a boot memory stick with 2.7.1, and am hoping pfSense isn't so damaged it can't pull the config.xml from the crashed install.

l just bought a VGA-to-HDMI adapter so I can try the console first before I restore, but I'm not optimistic. I read that one can copy config.xml from a backup to the boot memory stick, but that would seem to require a linux computer, which I don't have handy.

Patch

@lifespeed said in Package Manager empty, pkg upgrade, "libssl.so.30" not found:

It doesn't version check?

Agree.
An update GUI which prompts to update components then corrupts it's self when the user does so is a design fault imo

SteveITS

@lifespeed it’s supposed to be better going forward but was not in 2.7.0.
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/10464

See https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/backup/restore-during-install.html for options there.

lifespeed

@SteveITS "foot shootery" indeed. And the bug in 2.7.0 actually broke pfSense pkg updates. So even though I tend to keep pfSense up to date, there was no indication of an available update in the pfSense GUI, so updating pfBlockerNG to a version newer than pfSense was easy.

Really appreciate the help. Supposedly the blood, sweat and tears put into building my network on pfSense won't be lost with backups of config.xml, merely an inconvenience. We'll see.

stephenw10

It's because pkg itself has been updated. When you see that use pkg-static instead of pkg.

So try running:
pfSense-repoc
Then:
pkg-static -d update

But yes you should upgrade before installing packages.

lifespeed

Back online with a restored config. The filesystem was hosed, couldn't find the config.xml during restore from memory stick, so I just set up the WAN and LAN ports, then restored from the web interface. Not nearly the headache it could have been. Backups are key.

Patch

@stephenw10 said in Package Manager empty, pkg upgrade, "libssl.so.30" not found:

But yes you should upgrade before installing packages.

The problem with that logic is generally:

The user is suppose to update packages and patches to keep the system functioning well
pfsense update knows the software branch currently installed as well as package and patch versions. Which most user would assume enables it to offer appropriate updates.

Yet when Netgate choose to update their repositories it breaks the users software maintenance functionality. All of a sudden the normal maintenance protocol is likely to brick their hardware rather than improve their devices reliability.

Such behaviour is a system software update bug. Fixes maybe possible by changes to the code is users hardware or update protocols for the repositories.

Blaming the user for doing what they are supposed to do 95% of the time is really not appropriate imo, but I'm just a small time user.

Btw @stephenw10 I'm not meaning to shoot the messenger and I appreciate it is appropriate for you to give the companies perspective

stephenw10

Yes, it's a problem that has existed for years and despite numerous safety belts we have put in continues to hit users.

But that is fixed from 2.7.1/23.09. Upgrades from there require the user to opt-in to the new branch so installing packages without upgrading continues to use to old branch.