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

Bug#340390: 2.6.12 kernel and disk detection

> Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 06:41:47 +0100
> From: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>
> To: Ross Boylan <RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org>, 340390-done@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#340390: Installation report: disk detected with daily build
> Message-ID: <20051205054147.GF13271@djedefre.onera>
> References: <20051123065952.GB4092@wheat.betterworld.us> <[🔎] 20051204062342.GJ13271@djedefre.onera> <[🔎] 20051204233934.GA22772@wheat.betterworld.us> <[🔎] 200512050101.16724.aragorn@tiscali.nl> <[🔎] 20051205003236.GD22772@wheat.betterworld.us>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20051205003236.GD22772@wheat.betterworld.us>
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
> 	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
> 	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

> Quoting Ross Boylan (RossBoylan@stanfordalumni.org):

> > > Did you install Etch or Sid?
> > I thought the daily build was etch, but I don't know.

> Aha, confusinng matter..:-)

> Frans question is: when you were prompted for a mirror, you may have
> been prompted to install "Stable", "Testing" or "Unstable", just after
> choosing the mirror.

> If you did choose "Testing", then you're likely to run into problems.

> If you were'nt prompted, this is because the question is medium
> priority and you were running the installer at high priority (the default).

I wasn't prompted, and I did get testing.

> > apt is getting packages from testing.
> > 
> > The kernel after (successful) reboot is 2.6.12-1-686 Sep 27
> So, it seems that installing testing works..:-). However, it probably
> works with netinst images...not sure about netboot images (the small
> ISO images one can easily build with D-I sources).

Is it possible the installer used an earlier version of the 2.6.12
kernel than the one eventually installed?  I guess the latter is the
current one from testing.

The relevant component has been under active development, with
patches filtering into quite a few recent kernels.

Otherwise, I still don't understand why the beta 1 installer had trouble
with the disk.  I'm certainly glad it's fixed, though!


Reply to: