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

Bug#239660: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#239660: debian-installer-demo: Problem with XFS as Root FS and GRUB)



Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:

This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
#239660: =?iso-8859-15?q?debian-installer-demo=3A_Problem_with_XFS_as_Root_FS_and_?= =?iso-8859-15?q?GRUB=0D=0AHello_there=2C?=,
which was filed against the debian-installer-demo package.

It has been closed by one of the developers, namely
Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>.

Their explanation is attached below.  If this explanation is
unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate
message then please contact the developer, by replying to this email.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at 239660-done) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Mar 2004 05:13:44 +0000
From joey@kitenet.net Tue Mar 23 21:13:44 2004
Return-path: <joey@kitenet.net>
Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1B60i0-0008QH-00; Tue, 23 Mar 2004 21:13:44 -0800
Received: from dragon.kitenet.net (216-98-95-32.access.naxs.com [216.98.95.32])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "Joey Hess", Issuer "Joey Hess" (verified OK))
	by kitenet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5786E17DF8; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 05:13:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by dragon.kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 3584A6F11C; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:13:09 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:13:09 -0500
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
To: Robert Ribnitz <ribnitz@linuxbourg.ch>,
	239660-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#239660: debian-installer-demo: Problem with XFS as Root FS and GRUB
Message-ID: <20040324051309.GA29356@kitenet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Delivered-To: 239660-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_12 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_12 X-Spam-Level:

--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello there,
Reply-To:=20
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] E1B5tG9-00083R-UI@pinguin.insa.ch>

Robert Ribnitz wrote:
I don't know whether this bug affects the general debian-installer,
Here's the situation:
- Using a Debian-Installer Beta 3 in installed a new testing (mainly to
 get kernel with xfs support)
- Some repartitioning, and formatting. / is ext3, /var,/usr, /home are
 xfs.
- More or less default installation, with formatting of / /var and /usr
- GRUB is installed on system and works fine.
=20
Later on:
- Service boot using a current knoppix (Cebit Edition 0.4)
- Backup /, format partition using XFS, Restore /
=20
The reboot then caused the system to hand with an error (70), probably
because it can no longer access XFS.
=20
Possible way out:
=20
- If XFS on root is used, install lilo instead of grub.

The Debian installer has a guard against XFS being used for the root
filesystem with grub.

But you installed with an ext3 root partitoon using the Debian-installer,
and then used third party tools (knoppix, etc) to change / over to XFS.
This is your own problem, there is nothing d-i can do to prevent you
=66rom shootinjg yourself in the foot with another gun.

--=20
see shy jo
I know this, I also discussed this on IRC.

The prime reaosn for reporting this was to make sure the debian installer team was aware of such a problem. Ideally, the installer should permit any reasonable choice of fs (ext2,ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs,..) as root fs, which probably
needs adaptations to the kernel booting the system.

Please strengthen the warning that is given when xfs is chosen for the root partiiton.

yours

Robert




Reply to: