Hello Rick!

On 6/9/21 11:34 PM, Rick Thomas wrote:

You're right that /boot/grub somehow has gotten read-only. I didn't do that myself, so something else must have done that. Have you any clue you can share
with me as to which package I should re-file this report against?

You are too quick in assuming that there might be a bug somewhere. We don't know
yet how and why the filesystem was re-mounted read-only. You should check your log files for any error messages or warnings.

Normally the kernel warns you when a filesystem gets remounted read-only.

Adrian

--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/9/21 11:58 PM, Rick Thomas wrote:

Jun 09 01:42:55 kmac kernel: hfs: filesystem was not cleanly unmounted, running fsck.hfs is recommended. mounting read-only.

I did have a brief power outage recently. Maybe that's what caused the "not cleanly unmounted".

If both machines were running when the power went away, you have your explanation here.

I'll try unmounting it and running fsck.hfs...
Hmmm...

root@kmac:~# fsck.hfs -f -C0 /boot/grub
-bash: fsck.hfs: command not found

Am I missing a package somewhere?

Install "hfsprogs", it's in the "unreleased" distribution.

Adrian

--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/10/21 12:14 AM, Rick Thomas wrote:

So the only remaining question is "why was hfsprogs not automatically install on a G5 PowerMac?"

See: https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2021/04/msg00129.html

and: https://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2021/05/msg00012.html

--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 08:03:38AM -0600, Stan Johnson wrote:

Some people find it to be important to install only free software.

If hfsprogs were truly non-free, then an alternative would need to be
found, since hfsprogs provides required functionality.

I read the above links, which lead to this analysis:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00573.html

Is it really correct that debian-legal has concluded that hfsprogs is
not DFSG-free? Or is the above analysis an opinion from someone who is
not a Debian lawyer?

In this case, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) disagrees, saying "The
Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free
software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a
license that would qualify."

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html

I would generally accept FSF legal analyses and opinions over the legal
(or non-legal) analyses and opinions from anyone associated with any
specific GNU/Linux distribution.

FSF created a documentation license that is non-free in Debian. So FSF
doesn't seem like a good judge of what is or is not free. Their focus
is a lot more narrow than Debian's in terms of what freedom's users
should have.

Reading the entry from debian-legal, I would think that it is absolutely correct that it is non-free in Debian.

--
Len Sorensen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)