[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: INIT problems continue

> > It is *not* clear.
> Ok, where are you stuck?
> P: Configuring package apt
> E: Couldn't install root!

That looks pretty serious, no?

> 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?

> > 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?

> > 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

> 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.

> 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.


Reply to: