Bug#38517: Debian 2.1 Install Hangs
> I'm trying to install Debian Ver. 2.1 (I'm a first timer with
> Debian.) I changed the bios to boot from the CD and everything seems
> to proceed correctly until it gets to the following:
> aha152x: BIOS test: passed, auto configuration ok, detected 1
> controller(s)
> aha152x0: vital data: PORTBASE=0x340, IRQ=12, SCSI ID=7,
> reconnect=enabled, parity=enabled, synchronous=disabled, delay=100,
> extended translation=disabled
> aha152x: trying software interrupt, ok.
> Failed initialization of WD-7000 SCSI card!
> scsi0: Adaptec 152x SCSI driver: $Revision $
> scsi : 1 host.
> Vendor MICROP Model 1578-15 UP Rev: DG02
> Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revison: 01 CCS
> Detected scsi disk sda at scsi 0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0
> scsi0 : channel 0 target 0 lun 1 request sense failed, performing reset.
> scsi bus is being reset for host 0, channel 0.
>
> At this point, the process hangs and I have to reboot. I tried some
> alternate boot arguments as per the Install Help screen and per the scsi
> Howto but no success. Maybe I had the syntax wrong because I couldn't even
> continue the boot. It kept coming back with an error "unable to find boot
> image"
>
> The actual device is an old (and I mean old) combination QIC tape drive with
> a small hard drive that I don't even . The thing is, Red Hat, Caldera and
> SuSE all have no problem detecting this thing properly.
>
> Do you folks have any ideas? What is the proper form of a boot argumant in
> Debian? Where is the message about a "WD-7000 SCSI card" coming from? I've
> not seen that on any other install.
Hurm... well, the standard kernel includes support for lots of
different drivers, only one of which you care about. Sometimes that
causes problems.
Sometimes removing extraneous cards solves problems (such as sound
cards and internal modems).
Also, you might try the alternate adaptec images as metioned on
<http://www.debian.org/releases/slink>.
Please let us know how it goes.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: