Bug#278753: (no subject)
Continuing to try different combinations on this Compaq Deskpro 4000, 200Mhz
Pentium MMX...
I have tried several different daily builds with the same results. When I go
back to a Woody installation, it completes normally, and I have discovered I
can upgrade Woody successfully to Testing plus a kernel-image-2.4.18-1-386. The
upgraded system would FAIL to boot with 2.4.26, 2.4.27 and 2.6.8 kernels, but I
have changed the hardware and BIOS settings since those attempts.
The Debian 3.0rc2 installation usually fails during package configuration of the
base system. Once I got it to complete a base system installation and it failed
when trying to install GRUB.
The BIOS settings may have been wrong before but they should be OK now.
The packages are failing on install because the file system is becoming
corrupted. After a failed install, booting with a Knoppix CD and running fsck
-fy on the root volume turns up numerous illegal blocks and the fsck clears
inodes & fixes numerous other errors.
One more successful attempt -- expert installation, de-selecting all module
insertion for all the hardware I believe I do not have. This installation made
it all the way through but base installation but failed when trying to install
GRUB.
I have completely given up trying to configure the SIL0680 ultra-ATA card -- the
COMPAQ has two IDE buses so I put the small drive on the primary bus and the 200
gig drive on the secondary bus and I have had some more success. I also have the
AHA-7850 SCSI card (primarily for attaching a scanner) that I may remove next.
BY THE WAY -- much of the time (though not every time) while the partitioner is
doing its work, the progress indicator gets out of sync with the file system
creation, so the bar reaches 100% long before the process is completed. I
thought it was worse when initializing EXT3 vs EXT2 but I have seen it both
ways now. This MAY be a visible symptom of the hardware detection problem,
because the progress indicator does seem to work correctly when I turn off
detection.
Reply to: