Bug#300870: install report: Debian-Installer fails on old IBM PC
(Joey: CCing you as you originally followed up on this one)
On Friday 25 March 2005 15:02, Ian Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:38:28 -0500
>
> Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:
> > The installer tries to load all modules in the same order that Debian
> > will load them on boot, to avoid this kind of inconsistency. All I
> > can think of is that there must be some difference between the
> > modules that are loaded or the order they are loaded. This should be
> > reflected in the kernel messages.
I have compared the load order by the installer and the order in the
loadmodules file. The order seems almost _reversed_, not the same at all.
The third and sixth columns are cross-references to the other.
Installer (messages) Reboot (loadmodules)
===================== =====================
1 3c59x (net) 1 vesafb --
2 piix 20 2 fbcon --
3 via82cxxx 29 3 unix --
4 trm290 28 4 pdc202xx_new 13
5 triflex 27 5 adma100 25
6 slc90e66 26 6 aec62xx 24
7 sis5513 25 7 alim15x3 23
8 siimage 24 8 amd74xx 22
9 serverworks 23 9 atiixp --
10 sc1200 22 10 cmd640 21
11 rz1000 21 11 cmd64x 20
12 pdc202xx_old 20 12 cs5530 19
13 pdc202xx_new 4 13 cy82c693 18
14 opti621 18 14 generic 17
15 ns87415 17 15 hpt34x 16
16 hpt34x 15 16 hpt366 --
17 generic 14 17 ns87415 15
18 cy82c693 13 18 opti621 14
19 cs5530 12 19 pdc202xx_old 12
20 cmd64x 11 20 piix 2
21 cmd640 10 21 rz1000 11
22 amd74xx 8 22 sc1200 10
23 alim15x3 7 23 serverworks 9
24 aec62xx 6 24 siimage 8
25 adma100 5 25 sis5513 7
26 ide-detect 30 26 slc90e66 6
27 ide-disk 31 27 triflex 5
28 cdrom -- 28 trm290 4
29 ide-cd -- 29 via82cxxx 3
30 isofs -- 30 ide-detect 26
31 ide-disk 27
In this case the problem could well be the reversed load order of the piix
and generic modules.
> There is one other oddity I noticed, which may or may not be related.
> When I retry the installation (as I have many times), at the "Partition
> disks" stage (where I choose "manual"), the existing ext3 partition on
> hda is never recognized, although the existing swap partition on hdc
> is. I don't understand why that would happen.
What do you mean by "recognized"? The screen you get after choosing
"manual partitioning" should look something like [1] (only probably in
English, not in Dutch ;-).
[1] http://home.tiscali.nl/isildur/d-i/nl/partman.html#09.03
Cheers,
FJP
Reply to: