nanobsd upgrades still fail bacause of lacking resolv.conf
As I wrote in a comment to the closed bug #6557, the upgrade procedure still fails, because copying the source file of a symlink over the symlink itself does not work. The command exits with this error:
"cp: /var/etc/resolv.conf and /tmp/nanobsd_upgrade/etc/resolv.conf are identical (not copied)".
Thus we need first remove the symlink. I propose the attached patch to pfSense-upgrade script, which works for me.
Updated by Brett Keller about 5 years ago
I also ran into this issue, which broke my ability to update my NanoBSD 2.3.2_1 box to 2.3.3_1. The box in question runs neither unbound nor dnsmasq, as we have a separate DNS server on the LAN, so the fallback DNS calls to localhost mentioned in bug #6557 were failing after very long timeouts:
>>> Mounting second partition to run upgrade... done. >>> Copying resolv.conf to upgrade partition... done. >>> Downloading upgrade packages... Updating pfSense-core repository catalogue... Unable to update repository pfSense-core Updating pfSense repository catalogue... Unable to update repository pfSense All repositories are up-to-date. pkg: Repository pfSense-core cannot be opened. 'pkg update' required pkg: Repository pfSense cannot be opened. 'pkg update' required Checking for upgrades (0 candidates): . done Processing candidates (0 candidates): . done Checking integrity... done (0 conflicting) Your packages are up to date. >>> Upgrading pfSense kernel... pkg: Repository pfSense-core cannot be opened. 'pkg update' required pkg: Repository pfSense cannot be opened. 'pkg update' required pkg: No packages available to upgrade matching 'pfSense-kernel-pfSense' have been found in the repositories >>> Locking package pfSense-kernel-pfSense... done. Failed
Thanks to Andrew Hotlab for identifying the root cause! This is the right fix, but I had to tweak your patch slightly because your call to
_exec() was missing an argument for
_exec() makes the assumption that the second argument will always be the log message, no matter what.
I tested my tweaked version of your patch on the box I had that was suffering from this issue, and the update was able to complete successfully. I've submitted pull request #332 on GitHub, so hopefully this should get merged and fixed shortly.