Re: INIT problems continue
Eric Sharkey <sharkey@netrics.com> writes:
> > > It is *not* clear.
> >
> > Ok, where are you stuck?
> [...]
> > P: Configuring package apt
> > E: Couldn't install root!
>
> That looks pretty serious, no?
Maybe. It can be or can be a triviality. After apt is configured you
have a minimal chroot from which you can do everything else. If
cdebootstrap finished yout have a full chroot. I talked to the author
to get a better error displayed so hopefully this will improve.
> > Now thats something new. Something broke.
>
> There are two problems. If you do debootstrap --verbose you can see it.
> It's complaining about /etc/modules.conf existing (which you can fix by
> rm'ing it and re-running debootstrap), and also about the perl version
> problem (which didn't have an apparent fix).
>
> > But lets keep going. The
> > essential packages are installed and configured and the chroot should
> > be functional.
>
> Silly me. I stopped at the apparently fatal error.
>
> > It seems someone changed the sarge packages files or some debs
> > (possibly me) and broke things slightly. But I don't see the problems
> > you mentioned.
>
> The "Couldn't install root!" *is* the problem I mentioned.
>
> > > Anyway, the FAQ says:
> > >
> > > you need to setup a debian woody i386 [...] see the Debian Reference
> > > Manual 8.6.33 or the (c)debootstrap documentation [...] add "deb
> > > http://debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/ sarge main" to your
> > > /etc/apt/sources.list'
> > >
> > > If you think that's a clear instruction not to use debootstrap or to
> >
> > At that stage debootstrap is fine. It can handle i386.
>
> So why were you calling it crap?
Because its broken more often than not. It usually works for i386
because thats most tested, errors in debootstraps package lists are
fixed there fastest, all other archs lag behind. And for arch amd64 it
never worked.
> > > avoid sarge, I'd hate to hear what you think is unclear and confusing.
> >
> > It says "debian woody i386".
>
> And it tells you to set sarge in your sources list in the same paragraph.
> An unusual thing to do, without even a word about it?
After setting up the woody chroot.
> > > It reads like an old document that's been carelessly updated.
> >
> > Anyway, thats from
> >
> > "The first 64-bit kernel"
> > "Installing the biarch toolchain on a i386 chroot"
>
> Yes, that's precisely what I was trying to do.
>
> > from the mail I thought you already have such a kernel.
>
> I did, but I was having trouble with stabililty. I wanted to start
> from scratch, so I went back to the beginning and wanted to get an
> i386 chroot with the binarch tools to cross compile an amd64 kernel.
> I wiped my old chroots and went back to the i386 kernel and began
> again.
If you want to start from scratch again then we are talking about two
different things. Any input on that first part is welcome.
> > If not its
> > way easier to create a .config and ask on irc or on the ML to get it
> > compiled by someone else (as suggested in the FAQ as fallback).
>
> I'm not a mamby pampy user who needs someone else to compile a kernel
> for me.
Suite yourself.
> > I
> > started with a 64bit kernel preinstalled so i never had to do that
> > part.
>
> Good for you.
>
> > The docs are from old texts and hear say of other people.
> > Personally I'm to lazy to switch back to a 32bit kernel to check and
> > update those informations,
>
> Yes, I can tell. That's what I meant by "It reads like an old document
> that's been carelessly updated."
>
> Personally, I don't care if you're too lazy to test it or not. You
> can do with your time as you please. But when a user questions these
> sections, you shouldn't shout a RTFM at them if you don't even trust
> the M.
>
> Especially if you're not even following the conversation well enough
> to know what sections we're talking about.
>
> > The part of the FAQ you want to read again is:
> > "Creating a 32/64 bit chroot environment (optional)"
>
> No, I don't need to read the FAQ again.
>
> Eric
You disregarded the information in the FAQ and that is why you failed
so horribly. That following the FAQ still shows some problems doesn't
realy lessen the faq that you didn't.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: