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

Bug#261379: marked as done (base-installer: add kernel guesswork for amd64)



Your message dated Tue, 7 Dec 2004 06:38:42 +0000
with message-id <20041207063842.GA9509@riva.ucam.org>
and subject line Bug#261371: install report: amd64 works ok
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

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

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Jul 2004 16:04:47 +0000
>From tjzeeman@cs.vu.nl Sun Jul 25 09:04:47 2004
Return-path: <tjzeeman@cs.vu.nl>
Received: from keg.cs.vu.nl [130.37.24.4] (root)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1BolUV-0000JI-00; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:04:47 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by keg.cs.vu.nl with esmtp
	(Smail #91) id m1BolUT-00020EC; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 18:04 +0200
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 18:04:45 +0200 (CEST)
From: "Thomas J. Zeeman" <tjzeeman@cs.vu.nl>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: install report: amd64 works ok
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0407251757190.8927@keg.cs.vu.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 


Package: installation-reports

INSTALL REPORT

Debian-installer-version: 20040724 daily build from debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/install-images
uname -a: Linux carrington 2.6.7-5-amd64-xeon #1 SMP Thu Jul 15 00:27:37 CEST 2004 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Date: 20040725
Method: A netboot install from debian-amd64.alioth.debian.org/pure64/. No proxy.

Machine: Homebrew based on an Asus K8V SE deluxe mobo
Processor: AMD Athlon 64 3200+
Memory: 512MB
Root Device: hde6
Root Size/partition table:
   hde1		ntfs	40G	win xp
   hde3		ext3	20G	debian i386
   hde4		ext3	4G	debian i386
   hde6		ext3	4G	debian amd64	/
   hde5		lvm	125G
   	1 music	xfs	60G
	2 home	xfs	45G	/home
	3 opt	xfs	10G	/chroot
	4 swap			swap

Output of lspci and lspci -n:

Base System Installation Checklist:
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it

Initial boot worked:    [O]
Configure network HW:   [O]
Config network:         [O]
Detect CD:              [ ]
Load installer modules: [O]
Detect hard drives:     [O]
Partition hard drives:  [O]
Create file systems:    [O]
Mount partitions:       [O]
Install base system:    [O]
Install boot loader:    [O]
Reboot:                 [O]

Comments/Problems:

The install went ok. There are two points I do want to note however.

First, the windows partition wasn't detected by os-prober. A previous
install with a i386 d-i image did find it. Most likely caused by the
ntfs module being absent.

Second, although I have an AMD cpu d-i installed an Intel Xeon kernel-image.
It does boot and seems to be working good enough to install an k8
kernel-image.
In the logs I found a note that the installer didn't know what the amd64
architecture was and it looked like it just defaulted to the first
non-netboot kernel it could find.

regards,
Thomas
-- 

	Human civilization is not something achieved against nature; it is
	rather the outcome of the working of the innate qualities of man.
	 -- Ludwig von Mises


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 261379-done) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Dec 2004 06:38:45 +0000
>From cjwatson@flatline.org.uk Mon Dec 06 22:38:45 2004
Return-path: <cjwatson@flatline.org.uk>
Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk [193.201.200.170] (mail)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1CbYzl-0002eX-00; Mon, 06 Dec 2004 22:38:45 -0800
Received: from [192.168.124.112] (helo=riva.lab.dotat.at)
	by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.35 #1) with esmtp
	(return-path cjwatson@flatline.org.uk)
	id 1CbYzj-0001Za-00
	for 261379-done@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 07 Dec 2004 06:38:43 +0000
Received: from cjwatson by riva.lab.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	for 261379-done@bugs.debian.org
	id 1CbYzi-0002TZ-00; Tue, 07 Dec 2004 06:38:42 +0000
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 06:38:42 +0000
From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
To: 261379-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#261371: install report: amd64 works ok
Message-ID: <20041207063842.GA9509@riva.ucam.org>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0407251757190.8927@keg.cs.vu.nl> <20040725163758.GB27952@riva.ucam.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040725163758.GB27952@riva.ucam.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: 261379-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 

On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 05:37:58PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 06:04:45PM +0200, Thomas J. Zeeman wrote:
> > Second, although I have an AMD cpu d-i installed an Intel Xeon
> > kernel-image. It does boot and seems to be working good enough to
> > install an k8 kernel-image.
> > In the logs I found a note that the installer didn't know what the
> > amd64 architecture was and it looked like it just defaulted to the
> > first non-netboot kernel it could find.
>
> Right, base-installer needs to be educated here.

I did this in base-installer 1.03 back in late August, and the amd64
porters have since updated it for current kernels. Closing.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]



Reply to: