Is there any way to roll back the most recent upgrade?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP up vote
46
down vote
favorite
This has happened to me many times in the last 5 years: an upgrade broke my system.
Each time I end up with this situation, I have to reinstall the whole system, which is really annoying.
Is there any way to roll back the most recent upgrade to be able to have a functional system without reinstalling? If not, which is the best way to suggest this as a top priority idea?
I read this idea was described in brainstorm.ubuntu.com, but it feels it is dead... and the forums are full of examples of upgrades breaking things, that's why I feel something needs to be done about this topic.
Thanks!
upgrade
add a comment |Â
up vote
46
down vote
favorite
This has happened to me many times in the last 5 years: an upgrade broke my system.
Each time I end up with this situation, I have to reinstall the whole system, which is really annoying.
Is there any way to roll back the most recent upgrade to be able to have a functional system without reinstalling? If not, which is the best way to suggest this as a top priority idea?
I read this idea was described in brainstorm.ubuntu.com, but it feels it is dead... and the forums are full of examples of upgrades breaking things, that's why I feel something needs to be done about this topic.
Thanks!
upgrade
14
I'm signing in just to vote up this question. The lack of a coherent roll-back tool in a 2011 Desktop OS is pathetic. Windows had System Restore 5+ years ago, that's a long way behind the curve. Users have been (correctly) trained to install security updates, but we're constantly punished for doing this by failing drivers.
â Gates VP
Dec 6 '11 at 8:20
add a comment |Â
up vote
46
down vote
favorite
up vote
46
down vote
favorite
This has happened to me many times in the last 5 years: an upgrade broke my system.
Each time I end up with this situation, I have to reinstall the whole system, which is really annoying.
Is there any way to roll back the most recent upgrade to be able to have a functional system without reinstalling? If not, which is the best way to suggest this as a top priority idea?
I read this idea was described in brainstorm.ubuntu.com, but it feels it is dead... and the forums are full of examples of upgrades breaking things, that's why I feel something needs to be done about this topic.
Thanks!
upgrade
This has happened to me many times in the last 5 years: an upgrade broke my system.
Each time I end up with this situation, I have to reinstall the whole system, which is really annoying.
Is there any way to roll back the most recent upgrade to be able to have a functional system without reinstalling? If not, which is the best way to suggest this as a top priority idea?
I read this idea was described in brainstorm.ubuntu.com, but it feels it is dead... and the forums are full of examples of upgrades breaking things, that's why I feel something needs to be done about this topic.
Thanks!
upgrade
edited Apr 13 '11 at 15:52
Jorge Castro
34.4k104421614
34.4k104421614
asked Apr 13 '11 at 15:45
Marcelo Ruiz
366138
366138
14
I'm signing in just to vote up this question. The lack of a coherent roll-back tool in a 2011 Desktop OS is pathetic. Windows had System Restore 5+ years ago, that's a long way behind the curve. Users have been (correctly) trained to install security updates, but we're constantly punished for doing this by failing drivers.
â Gates VP
Dec 6 '11 at 8:20
add a comment |Â
14
I'm signing in just to vote up this question. The lack of a coherent roll-back tool in a 2011 Desktop OS is pathetic. Windows had System Restore 5+ years ago, that's a long way behind the curve. Users have been (correctly) trained to install security updates, but we're constantly punished for doing this by failing drivers.
â Gates VP
Dec 6 '11 at 8:20
14
14
I'm signing in just to vote up this question. The lack of a coherent roll-back tool in a 2011 Desktop OS is pathetic. Windows had System Restore 5+ years ago, that's a long way behind the curve. Users have been (correctly) trained to install security updates, but we're constantly punished for doing this by failing drivers.
â Gates VP
Dec 6 '11 at 8:20
I'm signing in just to vote up this question. The lack of a coherent roll-back tool in a 2011 Desktop OS is pathetic. Windows had System Restore 5+ years ago, that's a long way behind the curve. Users have been (correctly) trained to install security updates, but we're constantly punished for doing this by failing drivers.
â Gates VP
Dec 6 '11 at 8:20
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
In synaptics, you can at least control, what have been the recent updates: File-menu, history.
(if synaptic is startable, with the broken system). So with an apt-...-command, to revert their update, it shouldn't be too hard.
I guess there is a history-command for the command line too.
Maybe you have to delete the whole package, and install a specific version. Afaik, it is possible to install a specific version, but I never had the need to do so.
update: Looked up how to do with apt:
Find packages installed in the last 3x24h:
find /var/lib/dpkg/info/ -name *.list -mtime -3 | sed 's#.list$##;s#.*/##'
With apt-cache policy, you see available versions of a program:
sudo apt-cache policy PROGRAM:
*** 3.6.7+build3+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.10.04.1 0
500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates/main Packages
500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
3.6.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu4 0
here 3.6.7 and 3.6.3 . Now you know what earlier version might be installed (often not the immediate predecessor):
sudo apt-get install PROGRAM=3.6.3
Then you need to do an apt-pinning, to prevent future updates:
Create a new file in /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if >= 10.4) named after your program,
Package: program
Pin: version 3.6.3*
Pin-Priority: 1000
Thanks all for the info. I can't wait for ubuntu to manage zfs out of the box!
â Marcelo Ruiz
Apr 16 '11 at 3:27
I'm sorry - what has it to do with zfs? Does zfs manage rollbacks? Or do the updates break your zfs-install? Or does the zfs-update break something?
â user unknown
Apr 16 '11 at 3:31
What if the version is1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12according to apt? It refuses to accept that as a version number though. I want to downgrade form1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.13to1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12
â Csaba Toth
Jun 27 at 21:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Most of the time if your system is broken it is a kernel problem.
Simply boot an older kernel and reinstall the most recent packages (especially kernel packages) that probably didn't update correctly.
Few notes:
/var/log/dpkg.log
is your friend to check what is the list of the recently updated/installed packages
sudo apt-get -f install
can most of the time fix half-installed packages
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Mostly you can consult /var/log/apt/history.log for changes done by apt/synaptic. It's just a little forensic and alot of cut/paste to do.
Go back to the date when your system was still working fine.
First take all packages that got installed since then and put them together in an uninstall script. When the script has finished, start re-adding all removed packages again.
An example case:
logfile:
Start-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:11
Commandline: synaptic
Install: libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, automatic), libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1), glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 (0.4.1kali1, automatic), libfglrx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, au$
Remove: fglrx-glx-ia32:amd64 (12-6+point-3)
End-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:27
you can see,
libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 & libfglrx:amd64
got installed by Synaptic. as like libfglrx:amd64 got removed by Synaptic.
We went the reverse order, so first we remove the newly installed packages and we re-add the packages that got removed.
A working command for this case could looks like:
sudo apt-get remove -y libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 libfglrx:amd64 && sudo apt-get install -y libfglrx:amd64
Maybe it wouldn't be the best idea to go without the -y switch - to have more control about the process (to avoid broken dependencies). Most of you wouldn't break their finger while do a few verification "y"
In most cases a rollback is possible this way, but if dependencies are already broken - you may run into a even bigger issue.
Best answer, thanks a lot!
â userlond
Nov 23 '17 at 3:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Unfortunately there is no way to do this yet. Filesystem level snapshot/rollback is one of the features of the upcoming btrfs, but it has a ways yet to become feature complete and stable enough to use as the default filesystem.
1
For filesystem snapshots, you could use LVM instead, with ext3 or ext4.
â Flimm
Nov 12 '12 at 12:20
@Flimm, now you can, though it does not work very well and requires that you set up LVM when you install in the first place.
â psusi
Nov 12 '12 at 16:02
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
When doing a major upgrade, I clone the disk using Clonezilla. Burn it on a CD, have a spare (external) HDD available and follow the instructions on the Clonezilla LiveCD. Choose the partition-image mode, this uses the least space.
If you think you've broken your system (or wish to revert any changes), simply boot in the Clonezilla LiveCD, select the image on your (external) HDD and restore it. As these images are a literal copy of every bit on your disk, this might take a few hours depending on your disk speed and connection speed (the connection between the data, usually an external USB HDD, and the computer).
By the way, this is called a backup method.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
You can install an older version of a given package (downgrade) with apt or dpkg easily. Finding an older version of the package is the problem as these often disappear from the pool and mirrors as updates roll in.
If you install the package from an install CD or an outdated mirror or a cache, you will also need to keep it pinned to the old version so it won't be upgraded until you allow that. Which means you have to watch for updates and test them until your problem is fixed. This is of course a problem since meanwhile (maybe forever) you'll be left with the unfixed, possibly insecure package. That means every user with some kind of system issue will be left in some random state until they can resolve it.
All software also isn't forwards compatible, so an older version of something may well not behave right when fed with newer configuration or data files. Obviously this is impossible to solve unless you also roll back all user data to a state before the upgrade was done.
It would be great if there was a way to do this, but it is massively problematic. Anyone who thinks there is a coherent solution should write a proposal and invite comments or, better yet, make a proof of concept solution (code, script, document). Trolling and whining is not constructive.
Because there is no clean technical solution, most software is developed (and integrated) with "the only way is forward" mentality. Trying to manage outdated versions is a waste of everyone's time. Found problems are fixed in newer versions ASAP. As a minor solution, I would like to see an archive of previous package versions kept somewhere for the occasional temporary workaround.
Meanwhile you can report bugs and don't expect bleeding edge software to never fail. A fix, once found, should be in the next update. Devs are humans (mostly), and therefore fallible. Computers are fiddly and full of insane variety and detail. Defensively maintained systems using well-supported components and stable integrated software distribution can be very stable without becoming insecure or non-upgradeable despite this.
add a comment |Â
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
In synaptics, you can at least control, what have been the recent updates: File-menu, history.
(if synaptic is startable, with the broken system). So with an apt-...-command, to revert their update, it shouldn't be too hard.
I guess there is a history-command for the command line too.
Maybe you have to delete the whole package, and install a specific version. Afaik, it is possible to install a specific version, but I never had the need to do so.
update: Looked up how to do with apt:
Find packages installed in the last 3x24h:
find /var/lib/dpkg/info/ -name *.list -mtime -3 | sed 's#.list$##;s#.*/##'
With apt-cache policy, you see available versions of a program:
sudo apt-cache policy PROGRAM:
*** 3.6.7+build3+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.10.04.1 0
500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates/main Packages
500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
3.6.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu4 0
here 3.6.7 and 3.6.3 . Now you know what earlier version might be installed (often not the immediate predecessor):
sudo apt-get install PROGRAM=3.6.3
Then you need to do an apt-pinning, to prevent future updates:
Create a new file in /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if >= 10.4) named after your program,
Package: program
Pin: version 3.6.3*
Pin-Priority: 1000
Thanks all for the info. I can't wait for ubuntu to manage zfs out of the box!
â Marcelo Ruiz
Apr 16 '11 at 3:27
I'm sorry - what has it to do with zfs? Does zfs manage rollbacks? Or do the updates break your zfs-install? Or does the zfs-update break something?
â user unknown
Apr 16 '11 at 3:31
What if the version is1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12according to apt? It refuses to accept that as a version number though. I want to downgrade form1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.13to1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12
â Csaba Toth
Jun 27 at 21:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
In synaptics, you can at least control, what have been the recent updates: File-menu, history.
(if synaptic is startable, with the broken system). So with an apt-...-command, to revert their update, it shouldn't be too hard.
I guess there is a history-command for the command line too.
Maybe you have to delete the whole package, and install a specific version. Afaik, it is possible to install a specific version, but I never had the need to do so.
update: Looked up how to do with apt:
Find packages installed in the last 3x24h:
find /var/lib/dpkg/info/ -name *.list -mtime -3 | sed 's#.list$##;s#.*/##'
With apt-cache policy, you see available versions of a program:
sudo apt-cache policy PROGRAM:
*** 3.6.7+build3+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.10.04.1 0
500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates/main Packages
500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
3.6.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu4 0
here 3.6.7 and 3.6.3 . Now you know what earlier version might be installed (often not the immediate predecessor):
sudo apt-get install PROGRAM=3.6.3
Then you need to do an apt-pinning, to prevent future updates:
Create a new file in /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if >= 10.4) named after your program,
Package: program
Pin: version 3.6.3*
Pin-Priority: 1000
Thanks all for the info. I can't wait for ubuntu to manage zfs out of the box!
â Marcelo Ruiz
Apr 16 '11 at 3:27
I'm sorry - what has it to do with zfs? Does zfs manage rollbacks? Or do the updates break your zfs-install? Or does the zfs-update break something?
â user unknown
Apr 16 '11 at 3:31
What if the version is1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12according to apt? It refuses to accept that as a version number though. I want to downgrade form1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.13to1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12
â Csaba Toth
Jun 27 at 21:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
In synaptics, you can at least control, what have been the recent updates: File-menu, history.
(if synaptic is startable, with the broken system). So with an apt-...-command, to revert their update, it shouldn't be too hard.
I guess there is a history-command for the command line too.
Maybe you have to delete the whole package, and install a specific version. Afaik, it is possible to install a specific version, but I never had the need to do so.
update: Looked up how to do with apt:
Find packages installed in the last 3x24h:
find /var/lib/dpkg/info/ -name *.list -mtime -3 | sed 's#.list$##;s#.*/##'
With apt-cache policy, you see available versions of a program:
sudo apt-cache policy PROGRAM:
*** 3.6.7+build3+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.10.04.1 0
500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates/main Packages
500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
3.6.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu4 0
here 3.6.7 and 3.6.3 . Now you know what earlier version might be installed (often not the immediate predecessor):
sudo apt-get install PROGRAM=3.6.3
Then you need to do an apt-pinning, to prevent future updates:
Create a new file in /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if >= 10.4) named after your program,
Package: program
Pin: version 3.6.3*
Pin-Priority: 1000
In synaptics, you can at least control, what have been the recent updates: File-menu, history.
(if synaptic is startable, with the broken system). So with an apt-...-command, to revert their update, it shouldn't be too hard.
I guess there is a history-command for the command line too.
Maybe you have to delete the whole package, and install a specific version. Afaik, it is possible to install a specific version, but I never had the need to do so.
update: Looked up how to do with apt:
Find packages installed in the last 3x24h:
find /var/lib/dpkg/info/ -name *.list -mtime -3 | sed 's#.list$##;s#.*/##'
With apt-cache policy, you see available versions of a program:
sudo apt-cache policy PROGRAM:
*** 3.6.7+build3+nobinonly-0ubuntu0.10.04.1 0
500 http://de.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates/main Packages
500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
3.6.3+nobinonly-0ubuntu4 0
here 3.6.7 and 3.6.3 . Now you know what earlier version might be installed (often not the immediate predecessor):
sudo apt-get install PROGRAM=3.6.3
Then you need to do an apt-pinning, to prevent future updates:
Create a new file in /etc/apt/preferences.d/ (if >= 10.4) named after your program,
Package: program
Pin: version 3.6.3*
Pin-Priority: 1000
edited Apr 16 '11 at 4:11
answered Apr 13 '11 at 17:08
user unknown
4,79622151
4,79622151
Thanks all for the info. I can't wait for ubuntu to manage zfs out of the box!
â Marcelo Ruiz
Apr 16 '11 at 3:27
I'm sorry - what has it to do with zfs? Does zfs manage rollbacks? Or do the updates break your zfs-install? Or does the zfs-update break something?
â user unknown
Apr 16 '11 at 3:31
What if the version is1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12according to apt? It refuses to accept that as a version number though. I want to downgrade form1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.13to1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12
â Csaba Toth
Jun 27 at 21:05
add a comment |Â
Thanks all for the info. I can't wait for ubuntu to manage zfs out of the box!
â Marcelo Ruiz
Apr 16 '11 at 3:27
I'm sorry - what has it to do with zfs? Does zfs manage rollbacks? Or do the updates break your zfs-install? Or does the zfs-update break something?
â user unknown
Apr 16 '11 at 3:31
What if the version is1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12according to apt? It refuses to accept that as a version number though. I want to downgrade form1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.13to1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12
â Csaba Toth
Jun 27 at 21:05
Thanks all for the info. I can't wait for ubuntu to manage zfs out of the box!
â Marcelo Ruiz
Apr 16 '11 at 3:27
Thanks all for the info. I can't wait for ubuntu to manage zfs out of the box!
â Marcelo Ruiz
Apr 16 '11 at 3:27
I'm sorry - what has it to do with zfs? Does zfs manage rollbacks? Or do the updates break your zfs-install? Or does the zfs-update break something?
â user unknown
Apr 16 '11 at 3:31
I'm sorry - what has it to do with zfs? Does zfs manage rollbacks? Or do the updates break your zfs-install? Or does the zfs-update break something?
â user unknown
Apr 16 '11 at 3:31
What if the version is
1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12 according to apt? It refuses to accept that as a version number though. I want to downgrade form 1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.13 to 1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12â Csaba Toth
Jun 27 at 21:05
What if the version is
1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12 according to apt? It refuses to accept that as a version number though. I want to downgrade form 1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.13 to 1.0.2g-1ubuntu4.12â Csaba Toth
Jun 27 at 21:05
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Most of the time if your system is broken it is a kernel problem.
Simply boot an older kernel and reinstall the most recent packages (especially kernel packages) that probably didn't update correctly.
Few notes:
/var/log/dpkg.log
is your friend to check what is the list of the recently updated/installed packages
sudo apt-get -f install
can most of the time fix half-installed packages
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Most of the time if your system is broken it is a kernel problem.
Simply boot an older kernel and reinstall the most recent packages (especially kernel packages) that probably didn't update correctly.
Few notes:
/var/log/dpkg.log
is your friend to check what is the list of the recently updated/installed packages
sudo apt-get -f install
can most of the time fix half-installed packages
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Most of the time if your system is broken it is a kernel problem.
Simply boot an older kernel and reinstall the most recent packages (especially kernel packages) that probably didn't update correctly.
Few notes:
/var/log/dpkg.log
is your friend to check what is the list of the recently updated/installed packages
sudo apt-get -f install
can most of the time fix half-installed packages
Most of the time if your system is broken it is a kernel problem.
Simply boot an older kernel and reinstall the most recent packages (especially kernel packages) that probably didn't update correctly.
Few notes:
/var/log/dpkg.log
is your friend to check what is the list of the recently updated/installed packages
sudo apt-get -f install
can most of the time fix half-installed packages
edited Aug 12 '14 at 9:22
Tim
18.8k1482132
18.8k1482132
answered Sep 22 '12 at 9:49
Giordano Battilana
6911
6911
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Mostly you can consult /var/log/apt/history.log for changes done by apt/synaptic. It's just a little forensic and alot of cut/paste to do.
Go back to the date when your system was still working fine.
First take all packages that got installed since then and put them together in an uninstall script. When the script has finished, start re-adding all removed packages again.
An example case:
logfile:
Start-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:11
Commandline: synaptic
Install: libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, automatic), libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1), glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 (0.4.1kali1, automatic), libfglrx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, au$
Remove: fglrx-glx-ia32:amd64 (12-6+point-3)
End-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:27
you can see,
libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 & libfglrx:amd64
got installed by Synaptic. as like libfglrx:amd64 got removed by Synaptic.
We went the reverse order, so first we remove the newly installed packages and we re-add the packages that got removed.
A working command for this case could looks like:
sudo apt-get remove -y libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 libfglrx:amd64 && sudo apt-get install -y libfglrx:amd64
Maybe it wouldn't be the best idea to go without the -y switch - to have more control about the process (to avoid broken dependencies). Most of you wouldn't break their finger while do a few verification "y"
In most cases a rollback is possible this way, but if dependencies are already broken - you may run into a even bigger issue.
Best answer, thanks a lot!
â userlond
Nov 23 '17 at 3:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Mostly you can consult /var/log/apt/history.log for changes done by apt/synaptic. It's just a little forensic and alot of cut/paste to do.
Go back to the date when your system was still working fine.
First take all packages that got installed since then and put them together in an uninstall script. When the script has finished, start re-adding all removed packages again.
An example case:
logfile:
Start-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:11
Commandline: synaptic
Install: libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, automatic), libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1), glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 (0.4.1kali1, automatic), libfglrx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, au$
Remove: fglrx-glx-ia32:amd64 (12-6+point-3)
End-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:27
you can see,
libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 & libfglrx:amd64
got installed by Synaptic. as like libfglrx:amd64 got removed by Synaptic.
We went the reverse order, so first we remove the newly installed packages and we re-add the packages that got removed.
A working command for this case could looks like:
sudo apt-get remove -y libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 libfglrx:amd64 && sudo apt-get install -y libfglrx:amd64
Maybe it wouldn't be the best idea to go without the -y switch - to have more control about the process (to avoid broken dependencies). Most of you wouldn't break their finger while do a few verification "y"
In most cases a rollback is possible this way, but if dependencies are already broken - you may run into a even bigger issue.
Best answer, thanks a lot!
â userlond
Nov 23 '17 at 3:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Mostly you can consult /var/log/apt/history.log for changes done by apt/synaptic. It's just a little forensic and alot of cut/paste to do.
Go back to the date when your system was still working fine.
First take all packages that got installed since then and put them together in an uninstall script. When the script has finished, start re-adding all removed packages again.
An example case:
logfile:
Start-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:11
Commandline: synaptic
Install: libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, automatic), libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1), glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 (0.4.1kali1, automatic), libfglrx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, au$
Remove: fglrx-glx-ia32:amd64 (12-6+point-3)
End-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:27
you can see,
libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 & libfglrx:amd64
got installed by Synaptic. as like libfglrx:amd64 got removed by Synaptic.
We went the reverse order, so first we remove the newly installed packages and we re-add the packages that got removed.
A working command for this case could looks like:
sudo apt-get remove -y libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 libfglrx:amd64 && sudo apt-get install -y libfglrx:amd64
Maybe it wouldn't be the best idea to go without the -y switch - to have more control about the process (to avoid broken dependencies). Most of you wouldn't break their finger while do a few verification "y"
In most cases a rollback is possible this way, but if dependencies are already broken - you may run into a even bigger issue.
Mostly you can consult /var/log/apt/history.log for changes done by apt/synaptic. It's just a little forensic and alot of cut/paste to do.
Go back to the date when your system was still working fine.
First take all packages that got installed since then and put them together in an uninstall script. When the script has finished, start re-adding all removed packages again.
An example case:
logfile:
Start-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:11
Commandline: synaptic
Install: libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, automatic), libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1), glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 (0.4.1kali1, automatic), libfglrx:amd64 (13.12-3kali1, au$
Remove: fglrx-glx-ia32:amd64 (12-6+point-3)
End-Date: 2014-05-28 21:28:27
you can see,
libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 & libfglrx:amd64
got installed by Synaptic. as like libfglrx:amd64 got removed by Synaptic.
We went the reverse order, so first we remove the newly installed packages and we re-add the packages that got removed.
A working command for this case could looks like:
sudo apt-get remove -y libfglrx-amdxvba1:amd64 libgl1-fglrx-glx:amd64 glx-alternative-fglrx:amd64 libfglrx:amd64 && sudo apt-get install -y libfglrx:amd64
Maybe it wouldn't be the best idea to go without the -y switch - to have more control about the process (to avoid broken dependencies). Most of you wouldn't break their finger while do a few verification "y"
In most cases a rollback is possible this way, but if dependencies are already broken - you may run into a even bigger issue.
edited May 29 '14 at 11:32
Parto
9,008186399
9,008186399
answered May 29 '14 at 9:46
Matt
5111
5111
Best answer, thanks a lot!
â userlond
Nov 23 '17 at 3:44
add a comment |Â
Best answer, thanks a lot!
â userlond
Nov 23 '17 at 3:44
Best answer, thanks a lot!
â userlond
Nov 23 '17 at 3:44
Best answer, thanks a lot!
â userlond
Nov 23 '17 at 3:44
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Unfortunately there is no way to do this yet. Filesystem level snapshot/rollback is one of the features of the upcoming btrfs, but it has a ways yet to become feature complete and stable enough to use as the default filesystem.
1
For filesystem snapshots, you could use LVM instead, with ext3 or ext4.
â Flimm
Nov 12 '12 at 12:20
@Flimm, now you can, though it does not work very well and requires that you set up LVM when you install in the first place.
â psusi
Nov 12 '12 at 16:02
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Unfortunately there is no way to do this yet. Filesystem level snapshot/rollback is one of the features of the upcoming btrfs, but it has a ways yet to become feature complete and stable enough to use as the default filesystem.
1
For filesystem snapshots, you could use LVM instead, with ext3 or ext4.
â Flimm
Nov 12 '12 at 12:20
@Flimm, now you can, though it does not work very well and requires that you set up LVM when you install in the first place.
â psusi
Nov 12 '12 at 16:02
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Unfortunately there is no way to do this yet. Filesystem level snapshot/rollback is one of the features of the upcoming btrfs, but it has a ways yet to become feature complete and stable enough to use as the default filesystem.
Unfortunately there is no way to do this yet. Filesystem level snapshot/rollback is one of the features of the upcoming btrfs, but it has a ways yet to become feature complete and stable enough to use as the default filesystem.
answered Apr 13 '11 at 18:33
psusi
30.5k14786
30.5k14786
1
For filesystem snapshots, you could use LVM instead, with ext3 or ext4.
â Flimm
Nov 12 '12 at 12:20
@Flimm, now you can, though it does not work very well and requires that you set up LVM when you install in the first place.
â psusi
Nov 12 '12 at 16:02
add a comment |Â
1
For filesystem snapshots, you could use LVM instead, with ext3 or ext4.
â Flimm
Nov 12 '12 at 12:20
@Flimm, now you can, though it does not work very well and requires that you set up LVM when you install in the first place.
â psusi
Nov 12 '12 at 16:02
1
1
For filesystem snapshots, you could use LVM instead, with ext3 or ext4.
â Flimm
Nov 12 '12 at 12:20
For filesystem snapshots, you could use LVM instead, with ext3 or ext4.
â Flimm
Nov 12 '12 at 12:20
@Flimm, now you can, though it does not work very well and requires that you set up LVM when you install in the first place.
â psusi
Nov 12 '12 at 16:02
@Flimm, now you can, though it does not work very well and requires that you set up LVM when you install in the first place.
â psusi
Nov 12 '12 at 16:02
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
When doing a major upgrade, I clone the disk using Clonezilla. Burn it on a CD, have a spare (external) HDD available and follow the instructions on the Clonezilla LiveCD. Choose the partition-image mode, this uses the least space.
If you think you've broken your system (or wish to revert any changes), simply boot in the Clonezilla LiveCD, select the image on your (external) HDD and restore it. As these images are a literal copy of every bit on your disk, this might take a few hours depending on your disk speed and connection speed (the connection between the data, usually an external USB HDD, and the computer).
By the way, this is called a backup method.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
When doing a major upgrade, I clone the disk using Clonezilla. Burn it on a CD, have a spare (external) HDD available and follow the instructions on the Clonezilla LiveCD. Choose the partition-image mode, this uses the least space.
If you think you've broken your system (or wish to revert any changes), simply boot in the Clonezilla LiveCD, select the image on your (external) HDD and restore it. As these images are a literal copy of every bit on your disk, this might take a few hours depending on your disk speed and connection speed (the connection between the data, usually an external USB HDD, and the computer).
By the way, this is called a backup method.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
When doing a major upgrade, I clone the disk using Clonezilla. Burn it on a CD, have a spare (external) HDD available and follow the instructions on the Clonezilla LiveCD. Choose the partition-image mode, this uses the least space.
If you think you've broken your system (or wish to revert any changes), simply boot in the Clonezilla LiveCD, select the image on your (external) HDD and restore it. As these images are a literal copy of every bit on your disk, this might take a few hours depending on your disk speed and connection speed (the connection between the data, usually an external USB HDD, and the computer).
By the way, this is called a backup method.
When doing a major upgrade, I clone the disk using Clonezilla. Burn it on a CD, have a spare (external) HDD available and follow the instructions on the Clonezilla LiveCD. Choose the partition-image mode, this uses the least space.
If you think you've broken your system (or wish to revert any changes), simply boot in the Clonezilla LiveCD, select the image on your (external) HDD and restore it. As these images are a literal copy of every bit on your disk, this might take a few hours depending on your disk speed and connection speed (the connection between the data, usually an external USB HDD, and the computer).
By the way, this is called a backup method.
answered Apr 13 '11 at 21:02
Lekensteyn
115k46258349
115k46258349
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
You can install an older version of a given package (downgrade) with apt or dpkg easily. Finding an older version of the package is the problem as these often disappear from the pool and mirrors as updates roll in.
If you install the package from an install CD or an outdated mirror or a cache, you will also need to keep it pinned to the old version so it won't be upgraded until you allow that. Which means you have to watch for updates and test them until your problem is fixed. This is of course a problem since meanwhile (maybe forever) you'll be left with the unfixed, possibly insecure package. That means every user with some kind of system issue will be left in some random state until they can resolve it.
All software also isn't forwards compatible, so an older version of something may well not behave right when fed with newer configuration or data files. Obviously this is impossible to solve unless you also roll back all user data to a state before the upgrade was done.
It would be great if there was a way to do this, but it is massively problematic. Anyone who thinks there is a coherent solution should write a proposal and invite comments or, better yet, make a proof of concept solution (code, script, document). Trolling and whining is not constructive.
Because there is no clean technical solution, most software is developed (and integrated) with "the only way is forward" mentality. Trying to manage outdated versions is a waste of everyone's time. Found problems are fixed in newer versions ASAP. As a minor solution, I would like to see an archive of previous package versions kept somewhere for the occasional temporary workaround.
Meanwhile you can report bugs and don't expect bleeding edge software to never fail. A fix, once found, should be in the next update. Devs are humans (mostly), and therefore fallible. Computers are fiddly and full of insane variety and detail. Defensively maintained systems using well-supported components and stable integrated software distribution can be very stable without becoming insecure or non-upgradeable despite this.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
You can install an older version of a given package (downgrade) with apt or dpkg easily. Finding an older version of the package is the problem as these often disappear from the pool and mirrors as updates roll in.
If you install the package from an install CD or an outdated mirror or a cache, you will also need to keep it pinned to the old version so it won't be upgraded until you allow that. Which means you have to watch for updates and test them until your problem is fixed. This is of course a problem since meanwhile (maybe forever) you'll be left with the unfixed, possibly insecure package. That means every user with some kind of system issue will be left in some random state until they can resolve it.
All software also isn't forwards compatible, so an older version of something may well not behave right when fed with newer configuration or data files. Obviously this is impossible to solve unless you also roll back all user data to a state before the upgrade was done.
It would be great if there was a way to do this, but it is massively problematic. Anyone who thinks there is a coherent solution should write a proposal and invite comments or, better yet, make a proof of concept solution (code, script, document). Trolling and whining is not constructive.
Because there is no clean technical solution, most software is developed (and integrated) with "the only way is forward" mentality. Trying to manage outdated versions is a waste of everyone's time. Found problems are fixed in newer versions ASAP. As a minor solution, I would like to see an archive of previous package versions kept somewhere for the occasional temporary workaround.
Meanwhile you can report bugs and don't expect bleeding edge software to never fail. A fix, once found, should be in the next update. Devs are humans (mostly), and therefore fallible. Computers are fiddly and full of insane variety and detail. Defensively maintained systems using well-supported components and stable integrated software distribution can be very stable without becoming insecure or non-upgradeable despite this.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You can install an older version of a given package (downgrade) with apt or dpkg easily. Finding an older version of the package is the problem as these often disappear from the pool and mirrors as updates roll in.
If you install the package from an install CD or an outdated mirror or a cache, you will also need to keep it pinned to the old version so it won't be upgraded until you allow that. Which means you have to watch for updates and test them until your problem is fixed. This is of course a problem since meanwhile (maybe forever) you'll be left with the unfixed, possibly insecure package. That means every user with some kind of system issue will be left in some random state until they can resolve it.
All software also isn't forwards compatible, so an older version of something may well not behave right when fed with newer configuration or data files. Obviously this is impossible to solve unless you also roll back all user data to a state before the upgrade was done.
It would be great if there was a way to do this, but it is massively problematic. Anyone who thinks there is a coherent solution should write a proposal and invite comments or, better yet, make a proof of concept solution (code, script, document). Trolling and whining is not constructive.
Because there is no clean technical solution, most software is developed (and integrated) with "the only way is forward" mentality. Trying to manage outdated versions is a waste of everyone's time. Found problems are fixed in newer versions ASAP. As a minor solution, I would like to see an archive of previous package versions kept somewhere for the occasional temporary workaround.
Meanwhile you can report bugs and don't expect bleeding edge software to never fail. A fix, once found, should be in the next update. Devs are humans (mostly), and therefore fallible. Computers are fiddly and full of insane variety and detail. Defensively maintained systems using well-supported components and stable integrated software distribution can be very stable without becoming insecure or non-upgradeable despite this.
You can install an older version of a given package (downgrade) with apt or dpkg easily. Finding an older version of the package is the problem as these often disappear from the pool and mirrors as updates roll in.
If you install the package from an install CD or an outdated mirror or a cache, you will also need to keep it pinned to the old version so it won't be upgraded until you allow that. Which means you have to watch for updates and test them until your problem is fixed. This is of course a problem since meanwhile (maybe forever) you'll be left with the unfixed, possibly insecure package. That means every user with some kind of system issue will be left in some random state until they can resolve it.
All software also isn't forwards compatible, so an older version of something may well not behave right when fed with newer configuration or data files. Obviously this is impossible to solve unless you also roll back all user data to a state before the upgrade was done.
It would be great if there was a way to do this, but it is massively problematic. Anyone who thinks there is a coherent solution should write a proposal and invite comments or, better yet, make a proof of concept solution (code, script, document). Trolling and whining is not constructive.
Because there is no clean technical solution, most software is developed (and integrated) with "the only way is forward" mentality. Trying to manage outdated versions is a waste of everyone's time. Found problems are fixed in newer versions ASAP. As a minor solution, I would like to see an archive of previous package versions kept somewhere for the occasional temporary workaround.
Meanwhile you can report bugs and don't expect bleeding edge software to never fail. A fix, once found, should be in the next update. Devs are humans (mostly), and therefore fallible. Computers are fiddly and full of insane variety and detail. Defensively maintained systems using well-supported components and stable integrated software distribution can be very stable without becoming insecure or non-upgradeable despite this.
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:24
Communityâ¦
1
1
answered Nov 12 '12 at 11:25
XTL
1316
1316
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f34888%2fis-there-any-way-to-roll-back-the-most-recent-upgrade%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
14
I'm signing in just to vote up this question. The lack of a coherent roll-back tool in a 2011 Desktop OS is pathetic. Windows had System Restore 5+ years ago, that's a long way behind the curve. Users have been (correctly) trained to install security updates, but we're constantly punished for doing this by failing drivers.
â Gates VP
Dec 6 '11 at 8:20