Bug #13949
open
Boot Environments do not seem to cleanly restore the system
Added by Yuri Weinstein almost 2 years ago.
Updated almost 2 years ago.
Category:
Backup / Restore
Description
I tried and set up 25.01RC and had a minor issue so decided to roll back to 22.05.
To my surprise, after restoring the system back to 22.05, two packages: `ntopng` and `pfBlockerNG-devel` had errors and required reinstalls.
Boot Environments did not cleanly restore the system to the known state!
See more than 1 user reporting this problem => https://forum.netgate.com/topic/177764/boot-environments-unexpected-behavior
We're going to need more information. What errors ?
`pfBlockerNG-devel` had errors:
2023-02-10 07:46:43,351|ERROR| [pfBlockerNG]: Failed to load python module 'maxminddb': No module named 'maxminddb'
2023-02-10 07:46:43,351|ERROR| [pfBlockerNG]: Failed to load python module 'sqlite3': No module named '_sqlite3'
It took reinstalling to fix them.
I don't use `ntopng` on regular basis, but what happened was that `Service Watchdog` started spamming me with emails that `ntopng` stopped and needed to be restarted. I decided to reboot and tried opening it and it would not start, then after it was unsuccessful, tried reinstalling and that actually did not work, then removed it completely and installed it. And that worked.
@Christian McDonald please see more details.
That issue with pfBlockerNG isn't related to BEs. I've seen it and I addressed it. It was also impacting CE 2.6.0
You might need to force reinstall Unbound on 22.05 using pkg install -f unbound
IMHO errors with packages are irrelevant.
User expectations are that BE switches in between different pfS versions without any regards to individual packages settings and restored systems function exactly the same as they did at the time of creation.
Are those expectations wrong?
There is some conflating of issues here. What I'm saying is, the issue with pfBlockerNG specifically wasn't unique to BEs, users on 2.6.0 saw it too. So you might have seen two totally unrelated issues.
That’s why I said that errors in packages are irrelevant
User runs 22.05 and has no errors in packages - BE “default”
Makes a copy of this system - BE “22.05-backup”
Updates “default” to 23.01RC
Restores “22.05-backup” - now packages show errors(!?) => expected clean restore as it was in the initial step
It has nothing to do with specific packages, unless you state that those exceptions are not valid.
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Updated by 
Updated by