After 2.2.4 update package being reinstalled from 9 days now



  • Hi dear.

    After updating to 2.2.4 my machine is in reinstall package from 9 day now.

    Please see the image: machine are up from 9 days and so the package reinstall. What to do? Reboot? Any hints?


  • Banned

    So, you have been waiting for 9 days instead of simply rebooting again, or perhaps… doing a search here to use the - Diagnostics - Backup/Restore - Clear Package Lock?



  • I'm not waiting for 9 days.

    I have updated the machine then go to another customer. Today I'm back and the machine is in package updating. And no, I cannot reboot it.

    Package Lock seems to resolve. Thanks a lot.



  • @doktornotor:

    So, you have been waiting for 9 days instead of simply rebooting again, or perhaps… doing a search here to use the - Diagnostics - Backup/Restore - Clear Package Lock?

    The giant red do not touch sign in the GUI doesnt suggest to remove the package lock or suggest how to find out how this type of error is caused. Whats the point of castigating users with fail signs? A lot of these firewalls are remote and people dont expect simple upgrades to cause big red do not touch signs to pop up in the GUI or they wouldnt do it.


  • Banned

    Using your brain == lost skill… Facebook generation. Sigh.



  • No problem at all mickrussom.

    Maybe I had to search on the forum. Sure not to reboot my firewall. Now I know about clear package lock option under Backup/Restore, the strangest place to put the option instead of System-Packages.

    Ant not, at 40s I'm not a facebook generation guy, I'm sorry.


  • Banned



  • @doktornotor:

    Using your brain == lost skill… Facebook generation. Sigh.

    Documentation and meaningful error messages fixes this. Facebook and twitter go down? Come back later. The system behind is so complex there is nothing to understand besides "not working at the moment"

    However, when using a firewall or firewall-appliance, when there is a mis-configuration or a failure people only have error messages to go on. Dont assume people know what's going on underneath. This guy could be a linux pro but doesnt get pfsensed-freebsd or understand why a package lock is trivial.

    For example - I have an outstanding question as to why the pfsense appliance I have (FW-7535 / netgate) was unable to upgrade , fixed that myself with a new cfcard, then I had to figure out in a rather obscure way to use boot0cfg to fixup ad0 for a BIOS issue - but none of these situations I encountered produced an error. Just a blank blinking cursor at boot time (impossible to debug at this point). The question is now will future update from 2.2.4 to 2.2.x or 2.3.x cause issues. I dont know. And I only have one unit so all attempts will be potentially fatal .

    Anyways, I can see why CC88 asked the question. He got into a situation where he needed to know the best course of action. I dont think it would be easy to google for the answer in this situation. He should be congratulated for not pouring gas on a fire and asking first rather than chastised.

    I really like pfsense and rarely have cause to complain but sometimes problems are not covered by cogent error messages, FAQs / release notes, etc - thats why people come here for help.

    I always think of it this way - you think it takes super-smart intelligent people guessing at how to make a commercial airliner work nearly 99.9999% of the time? Or you think that there are a lot of checklists and failsafes a fledgling can perform to ensure the system works properly? The key to stable and reliable systems is to account for a novice operator.

    I remember days long ago when I saw a toothless coot with a bad accent change a disk pack on a mainframe. No issues. He followed a script.


  • Banned

    FB-gen-friendly message in 2.2.5 snapshots now… :P



  • Definitely a legit question. Thanks for the pull requests doktornotor, merged to help this situation, but please chill with the attitude.

    The whole root problem of one bad package hanging up the entire reinstall process is fixed in 2.3 by changing of handling of PHP during the reinstallation process.


  • Banned

    BTW, looks like the CSS could do with some improvements regarding the link color (didn't check with 2.3 yet, however this looks exact same bad in the package descriptions that have links in package manager.)



  • Yeah there are some similar things there on other pages. I think that should look fine in 2.3, but would appreciate a double check there.


Log in to reply