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

Bug#240109: Additional confirmation and info

On Sat, May 08, 2004 at 11:10:24PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:13:23PM +0000, Chris Tillman wrote:
> > I'll just mention at the end here that the installer is really top
> > notch now, it installed the base system without a hitch and I didn't
> > have one clue that anything was wrong until yaboot installation barfed
> > with 'Failed to mount /proc'. The underlying problem was yabootconfig
> > being unable to find a bootable kernel in /boot.
> yaboot-installer doesn't even run yabootconfig, so this seems
> impossible. Can you elaborate on how you discovered that this was the
> underlying problem? The only two code paths to that error in
> yaboot-installer are:
>   mkdir -p /target/proc || \
>       die yaboot-installer/mounterr 'Error creating /target/proc'
>   mount -t proc none /target/proc || \
>       die yaboot-installer/mounterr 'Error mounting /target/proc'

Uh oh, faulty assumption on my part. I thought yaboot-installer was
still running yabootconfig. 

The error message I got was neither of those, it was literally 'Failed
to mount /target/proc'.

The state of my system after the error was:
1) /etc/yaboot.conf did not exist
2) /target/etc/yaboot.conf did not exist
3) /proc was mounted correctly within /target
4) In console 3, just 'Setting up yaboot (1.3.11-1)'
5) in syslog, yaboot-installer info: messages about the subarch,
   and allowing partition types matching 'hfs', and a partition dump.

I haven't done anything else with the target partition yet; is there 
something else I could look at or try? 

I went back in using the expert boot parameter, ran
yaboot-installer.postinst manually, and got no error.  It correctly
created the boot partition, leaving my machine unbootable due to this
bug (no sweat, I remembered the partition number for my regular root

Debian GNU/Linux Operating System
  By the People, For the People
Chris Tillman (a people instance)
   toff one at cox dot net

Reply to: