Re: Suggestion for Sarge Release Notes
Hi Again
> Can you explain _why_ lilo needs to be run during the upgrade?
Initially, I was upgrading my VMWare woody dev boxes for testing. I had
the problem that after the upgrade, the lilo boot loader (from what I have
read the second stage) would get suck at "li". Normally, you would get
"lilo:". After lots of re-imaging (VMWare is good for that) I solved the
problem by reinstalling the kernel. I thought it was just a VMWare bug.
Then I upgraded a real server and ran lilo at the end of the process.
Rebooted and all was well. I did this because I was cleaning up the
installed kernels. Then I upgraded a second server, but did not run lilo.
Same thing. Stuck at "li". I had to use a recuse disk to mount the disk
and run lilo. Once I did this the machine booted correctly.
In my case I wasn't upgrading the kernel so no lilo command was run. It
looks like the lilo version is upgraded in the Sarge update but the MBR
has been generated off the old version (or something like that).
I found the following link on the net which I eventually used to solve my
problem:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/history/333584
Kind Regards
Rohan
> On Saturday 09 July 2005 23:13, Rohan Mars wrote:
>> Great jobs with Sarge. Really impressed.
>
> Thank you for these kind words.
>
>> I thought I would suggest you put an additional note in section 4.6 of
>> the release notes for upgrading from woody.
>>
>> Basically, the problem I ran into (several times) was that you need to
>> rerun lilo if you don't upgrade the kernel. Several machines I run have
>> custom kernels so I could directly download them through apt. The
>> problem is that if you don't rerun lilo (or install a new kernel which
>> does) the machine will not boot. In my case I solved this by booting
>> into a rescue system and then running lilo.
>>
>> A note in section 4.6 which says if you don't install a new kernel you
>> need to run lilo would help others in the future I suspect.
>
> Can you explain _why_ lilo needs to be run during the upgrade?
>
> Cheers,
> FJP
>
Reply to: