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

Bug#253470: di-rep: i386 netboot 20040607



Package: installation-reports

Debian-installer-version: http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/images/20040607/netboot/
a network boot using http://etherboot.org for the boot software at client side.
Used unstable from http://ftp.nl.debian.org for packages.

I used a daily image because beta4 netboot image for i386 did not
detect any IDE devices.

Two attempts with 20040608 images failed in kernels oopses.

Attempts with 20040607 had also OOPSES at several places,
but did bring me to debian base system install.

However that showed, at console 1:

              [!!] Install the base system
             Base system installation error
     The debootstrap program exited with an error (return value 1).

     Check /var/log/messages or see virtual console 3 for the details.


         <Go Back>                                 <Continue>


At /var/log/messages and console 3 there was:

dpkg: depndency problems prevent configuration of console-tools:
 console-tools depends on console-common; however:
  Package console-common is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing console-tools (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
 console-data
 console-common
 base-config
 console-tools
umount: /target/dev/pts: Invalid argument
umount: /target/dev/shm: Invalid argument
umount: /target/proc/bus/usb: Invalid argument


Then an other base install in the unclean target, reported

ln: /target/usr/bin/awk: File exists
(I have seen E-mails about it before, dunno current state)
I did manual remove that link and give it an other try


The third attempt of base install failed also.


Back into the main menu and selecting
a bootloader triggered an other base install :-(



So this is a report of an unsuccesfull netboot install on i386.

Please let me known when I can give it an other try.


Cheers
Geert Stappers

Attachment: pgpKaIMC3XNCt.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: