Recently Update Manager ceased working. Ubuntu Software Centre, when I enter it instead, offers to repair, then fails and offers to repair again, and so on. This is the key sentence I keep getting and am sick of seeing: linux-generic depends on linux-image-generic (= 3.2.0.58.69); however: Version of linux-image-generic on system is 3.2.0.59.70.  It makes no sense to me. Why would linux need an earlier version than the one installed to update itself? I am not certain, but it may be that this problem started after attempting to install Google Chrome. When I checked with Synaptic PM, having tried some of the suggested apt commands at the unmet dependencies thread to no avail, it identified linux-generic as broken, tried to update to 3.2.0.60.71, but then failed again, saying it needed the earlier version (which synaptic says is installed).But that 3.2.0.60.71 is installed instead! So, it says it needs to upgrade, but then acts like it already has. I have not seen anyone else with precisely (no pun intended) this problem on these forums, though someone else unknown has saved virtually the same system response on pastebin .
122455
Today I went over to my grandma because she had some problems with her computer, running Xubuntu 12.04LTS. After fixing 'the problem' (Firefox was set fullscreen..) I ran the usual apt-get update &amp;&amp; apt-get dist-upgrade to immediately update everything. Instead I was greeted by an error that some packages where not correctly installed. So I ran dpkg --configure -a. My guess is that, because Firefox was fullscreen, she couldn't figure out how to turn of her computer and had simply turned it of, probably at the exact moment when it was installing automatic security updates. Running dpkg --configure -a however only left me with an error message about unmet dependencies for linux-generic. When running apt-get dist-upgrade again, it told me the same and I should try the -f option. However, even while trying to force the upgrade it still wont install them.  This is the output from the commands (added LANG=C because default language is Dutch).  jeroen@Bomma:/home/bomma$ LANG=C sudo apt-get dist-upgrade Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done You might want to run 'apt-get -f install' to correct these. The following packages have unmet dependencies:  linux-generic : Depends: linux-image-generic (= 3.2.0.37.45) but 3.2.0.38.46 is installed                  Depends: linux-headers-generic (= 3.2.0.37.45) but 3.2.0.38.46 is installed E: Unmet dependencies. Try using -f.   Running it with -f:  jeroen@Bomma:/home/bomma$ LANG=C sudo apt-get -f dist-upgrade  Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done Correcting dependencies... Done Calculating upgrade... Done The following packages will be upgraded:   linux-generic 1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded. 1 not fully installed or removed. Need to get 0 B/1.722 B of archives. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue [Y/n]?   dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-generic:  linux-generic depends on linux-image-generic (= 3.2.0.37.45); however:   Version of linux-image-generic on system is 3.2.0.38.46.  linux-generic depends on linux-headers-generic (= 3.2.0.37.45); however:   Version of linux-headers-generic on system is 3.2.0.38.46. dpkg: error processing linux-generic (--configure):  dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because MaxReports is reached already     Errors were encountered while processing:  linux-generic E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)   I'm out of ideas on how to solve this (other than quickly reinstalling her pretty default xubuntu)? Trying to remove and reinstall the linux-generic package seems rather risky, but maybe that would solve it?
102776
Why is it that Ubuntu only support a version for a limited time? Since I have been on this site I have seen many references to particular versions not being supported. What does it actually mean? After this time must a user just use the OS in the state it is in at the date that support ends? Does this mean no more package updates are available?   Or when this support date has elapsed, should the user then abandon the version and install a newer version instead? I am slightly confused with the difference between Ubuntu and Linux here (with Windows you use it until you buy the latest version) and would be grateful if someone could explain the Ubuntu 'lifecycle' (if that is a suitable word). Thanks in advance for your help.
108411
Having run into many snags and stability issues when upgrading (update-manager -d) from just release to release (For example: 13.04 - 13.10), I soon learned and have been told that it is always more reliable to just do fresh installs.  However, when it comes to LTS to LTS upgrading (update-manager -d), I was told by a #ubuntu op that this is AS RELIABLE as doing a fresh install. I have a hard time understanding how that can be. If just release to release is prone to instability, what makes an LTS to LTS upgrade any different? How can it be as reliable as a fresh install?
41245
I haven't seen this message from Update Manager before, and I have not been able to google up any info.  What will be installed when I click Install?  (Clicking "Description of Update" got me nothing...)
61120
I've been trying to upgrade my installation of Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10, but all of the instructions I've found haven't been helping. They mostly say to run the update manager and it'll tell you that there's a new distribution ready. Well, mine doesn't say that.  Things I've run or checked:   update-manager -d says:     Your system is up-to-date   The package information was last updated less than one hour ago.  I've set it to get all new distributions, not just LTS  $ cat /etc/update-manager/release-upgrades [DEFAULT] # default prompting behavior, valid options: #  never  - never prompt for a new distribution version #  normal - prompt if a new version of the distribution is available #  lts    - prompt only if a LTS version of the distribution is available Prompt=normal  I'm definitely running 9.04  $ lsb_release -r Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description:    Ubuntu 9.04 Release:        9.04 Codename:       jaunty  Even running the release upgrade from console doesn't help:  $ sudo do-release-upgrade  Checking for a new ubuntu release No new release found    This is running from behind a proxy, but I've set it up such that the regular upgrades and apt-get etc doesn't complain. (export http_proxy=http://myuser:mypass@myserver:8080/)  Could you think of anything else which might be stopping me from upgrading?
710
Update  appear to have been updated recently (as of writing this the last update appears to have taken place on 3rd of June) to include the following statement:  The -d switch is necessary to upgrade from Ubuntu 18.04 LTS as upgrades have not yet been enabled and will only be enabled after the first point release of 20.04 LTS.  Also note that .  TLDR (as of 15 Aug 2020):   is the canonical tracking document for the first Focal Fossa point-release (20.04.1). It’s a live document. The Ubuntu release team will be updating it as we work on releasing 20.04.1. […] Upgrades from 18.04 to 20.04.1 are still disabled as we are working through a few upgrade blockers   Edit The answers (so far) do not answer the question. The question is pretty simple. Ubuntu.com points to a &quot;FinalRelease&quot;, which turns out to be a &quot;Development Release&quot;, see evidence below. I'm not asking how and when to upgrade. I'm pointing out what seems to me to be an apparent inconcistency (in semantics, linguistics, logic) in the way Ubuntu names or labels its releases. From an answer to the question I'd except someone to pick up and acknowledge this inconsistency. An answer could start with a &quot;Yes, ...&quot; or a &quot;No, ...&quot;, for starters. (Moreover, a good answer could distinguish between the release being in dev stage and/or the upgrade process (e.g. from LTS to LTS) being in dev stage, if appropriate.) This question, as I see it, is not a duplicate. Futher, I think it is a question which deserves a non-patronizing answer. Thanks.   indicates that today (23rd April 2020) the new Ubuntu 20.04 LTS is to be released.  See &quot;condensed screenshot&quot; here:  Indeed, it seems that that's what happened, see  and :  However, when following the instructions to upgrade (from 18.04 LTS to 20.04 LTS) found  and elsewhere (edit: actually , too!), even prior to the July point release, I'm a bit confused to see that the instruction is to use update-manager -d which also points to the &quot;Development Release&quot; (see screenshot below) rather than the &quot;FinalRelease&quot; (see screenshot and link above). Is the &quot;Final Release&quot; (which I'm after) the/a &quot;Development Release&quot;? Why isn't it called something like &quot;Production Release&quot; or &quot;Final Release&quot;? When will it no longer be referred to as &quot;Development Release&quot;? In July? I'm confused :(
34562
Last night I was updating my Ubuntu 10.04 to either 11.04 or 12.04 (I'm not entirely sure which one it was, but I think it was 11.04) and I left it overnight to finish. When I came down in the morning, I noticed that the computer hadn't barely begun installing the updates! The update thing said that my computer was on the installation step, but it was still preparing the libc bin (or whatever its called) . It's like the first part of the step installing the upgrades. So, I stupidly restarted the computer, and when it rebooted, I got five options on a purple screen:  Ubuntu, with Linux 3.0.0-28-generic Ubuntu, with Linux 3.0.0-28-generic (recovery mode) Previous Linux versions Memory test (memtest86+) Memory test (memtest86+, serial console 115200)   Long story short, not matter which way I enter Ubuntu to try and reinstall the updates using the root thing (it's like terminal) after I enter sudo apt-get update it basically said it failed to fetch every url link, and it then says:  W: Some index files have failed to download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead. W: Not using locking for read only lock file /var/lib/dpkg/lock E: dpkg was interrupted, you must manually run 'sudo dpkg --configure -a' to correct the problem.   So, I entered sudo dpkg --configure -a, and it says:  dpkg: error: unable to access dpkg status area: Read-only file system"   I'm left like wtf, and I really just some guidance here. I just got this laptop, and I can not afford a new one if I broke this one.
42326
I have Xubuntu 18.04.3, and whenever I try to install a package through apt-get I get the following message.    Removing linux-image-5.0.0-31-generic (5.0.0-31.33~18.04.1) ... /etc/kernel/postrm.d/initramfs-tools: update-initramfs: Deleting /boot/initrd.img-5.0.0-31-generic /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-update-grub: Sourcing file `/etc/default/grub' /usr/sbin/grub-mkconfig: 35: /etc/default/grub: FROM:: not found run-parts: /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-update-grub exited with return code 127 dpkg: error processing package linux-image-5.0.0-31-generic (--remove):  installed linux-image-5.0.0-31-generic package post-removal script subprocess returned error exit status 1 Errors were encountered while processing:  linux-image-5.0.0-31-generic libdvd-pkg: Package libdvdcss2-1.4.2-1 was removed, stop processing... E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)   Contents of /etc/default/grub:  # If you change this file, run 'update-grub' afterwards to update # /boot/grub/grub.cfg. # For full documentation of the options in this file, see: #   info -f grub -n 'Simple configuration'  GRUB_DEFAULT=0 GRUB_TIMEOUT_STYLE=hidden GRUB_TIMEOUT=10 GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR=`lsb_release -i -s 2&gt; /dev/null || echo Debian` GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="quiet splash" GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="persistent"  # Uncomment to enable BadRAM filtering, modify to suit your needs # This works with Linux (no patch required) and with any kernel that obtains # the memory map information from GRUB (GNU Mach, kernel of FreeBSD ...) #GRUB_BADRAM="0x01234567,0xfefefefe,0x89abcdef,0xefefefef"  # Uncomment to disable graphical terminal (grub-pc only) #GRUB_TERMINAL=console  # The resolution used on graphical terminal # note that you can use only modes which your graphic card supports via VBE # you can see them in real GRUB with the command `vbeinfo' #GRUB_GFXMODE=640x480  # Uncomment if you don't want GRUB to pass "root=UUID=xxx" parameter to Linux #GRUB_DISABLE_LINUX_UUID=true  # Uncomment to disable generation of recovery mode menu entries #GRUB_DISABLE_RECOVERY="true"  # Uncomment to get a beep at grub start #GRUB_INIT_TUNE="480 440 1"  FROM: GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="" GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="" TO: GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT="ipv6.disable=1" GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="ipv6.disable=1"
9626
How can I safely upgrade an Ubuntu installation from one release to another? What should I do before upgrading to ensure it goes smoothly, and is there any clean-up I need to do afterwards?  In particular, do I need to do anything special if I am using packages from PPAs, if I have a graphics card that needs drivers, or if I'm running a custom Linux kernel?  This is a general question , but as example we take Ubuntu 12.04 and Ubuntu 12.10
49079
What reasons are there for applications in Ubuntu not being the most up-to-date, and why are some applications not available, in its  repositories?
52525
I had several friends ask me to update their Ubuntu to a newer kernel without changing the version of Ubuntu. So for example, staying in 10.04 with the 3.3 Kernel version.  When having an older or present Ubuntu version, many users want to apply the newer stable/unstable kernel version to the Ubuntu version they are using thinking that it is similar to upgrading a program. So what I am looking for, are some simple answers to explain the dangers (that are pretty much bigger than the advantages) of forcing a newer kernel version in a Ubuntu release that was not meant for it.  What can I tell them or explain to them of why they should NOT update to a newer/older kernel when having an Ubuntu version that was not made for that kernel version.
111269
My machine was updated today to Ubuntu 16.04.2. However, the kernel is still "4.4.0-62-generic". What happened (it seemed that the principal advantage of the 16.04.2 version was the update of the kernel to 4.8) ? Do I have to make a fresh install ?
20435
I have  about how to upgrade ghostscript to a version that is available on 15.04 but not on 14.04LTS (which I have). On this site there are numerous almost identical question regarding different packages, a few examples include:         So I thought it would be very useful in general to know: is there  a general, automated way to upgrade a package, including all its dependencies, to a version that is newer than Ubuntu's repos? Is this more easily done if the newer version exists in more recent Ubuntu releases?
73986
How can I fix this? I can't update anything at all.   I've tried to switch to my best server in the options.  When I do sudo apt-get update, this is what I get:     W: Failed to fetch     Unable to find   expected entry 'universe/binary-1386/Packages' in Release file (Wrong   sources.list entry or malformed file) E: Some index files failed to   download. They have been ignored, or old ones used instead.*   When I do sudo apt-get upgrade, I get this:     Reading package lists... Done      Building dependency tree             Reading state information... Done      0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.   the contents of my source.list:     deb  quantal universe restricted main   ....update: when I update, it looks for 'universe/binary-1386/Packages'  however, if I go to: ubuntu.mirror.rafal.ca/ubuntu/dists/quantal/Release with Google Chrome, I see that the file is actually named "universe/binary-i386/Packages" (it's with an i, not a 1) . how can I fix this and make it expect the proper package?
71550
When trying to upgrade using the terminal, my upgrade stops. This is the line showing in the terminal:  The required dependency 'apt(&gt;=1.0.10.2 ubuntu2)' is not installed.   my problem is that I don't know the command to install this dependency. Using other commands, it says apt is up to date. Solutions?
19932
Using Ubuntu, I have a habit of running: sudo apt update sudo apt upgrade   on every startup. But for a month, I guess, there have been no updates whatsoever. The message shows: All packages are up to date  Now I am starting to worry. Can there be a fault in my update manager? As far as I know, I've made no changes to the package manager settings. But no updates for almost a month seems kind of weird. Any feedback would be helpful. Thanks.
18593
This is exact content from my sources.list:  #  # deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 2016.1 _Kali-rolling_ - Official Snapshot amd64 LIVE/INSTALL Binary 20160830-11:29]/ kali-rolling contrib main non-free #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 2016.1 _Kali-rolling_ - Official Snapshot amd64 LIVE/INSTALL Binary 20160830-11:29]/ kali-rolling contrib main non-free   I couldn't install the Synaptic package manager and was told to modify sources.list.  I googled a lot and added some repos into it and ran update and upgrade command only to see Kali crash... I had to recover it.  Please mention the exact content that should be there to ensure that Kali Linux works.