On Wednesday 14 February 2007 01:07, o99v69402@sneakemail.com wrote: > Just to make sure, I also tried todays (13.02.2007) daily build of the > netinstall iso. Same result as before: failure on module loading. Now you are completely confusing me. "Failure on module loading" is not the same as "failure to recognize the CD". Also, this output you are sending now: > x31:/home/agent# udevinfo -q env -p /sys/block/sr0 > ID_CDROM=1 > ID_CDROM_CD_R=1 > ID_CDROM_CD_RW=1 > ID_CDROM_DVD=1 > ID_CDROM_MRW=1 > ID_CDROM_MRW_W=1 > ID_CDROM_RAM=1 > ID_VENDOR=LaCie > ID_MODEL=LaCie_CDRW_USB > ID_REVISION=0000 > ID_SERIAL=LaCie_LaCie_CDRW_USB_10000E000AF0C2C8 > ID_TYPE=floppy > ID_BUS=usb > ID_PATH=pci-0000:00:1d.7-usb-0:3:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0 > GENERATED=1 ... is completely different from what you gave in your previous mail: > # udevinfo -q env -p /sys/block/sr0 > ID_VENDOR=LaCie > ID_MODEL=LaCie_CDRW_USB > ID_REVISION=0000 > ID_SERIAL=LaCie_LaCie_CDRW_USB_10000E000AF0C2C8 > ID_TYPE=floppy > ID_BUS=usb > ID_PATH=pci-0000:00:1d.7-usb-0:3:1.0-scsi-0:0:0:0 With the _first_ output, your drive should be recognized automatically. With the _second_ output I can understand why it doesn't. It looks like the first udevinfo output may be from your running system, but you don't actually say so. Please explain where the difference comes from. - Was the udevinfo output obtained using the same kernel? (Use 'uname -a' and 'cat /proc/version' to check.) - Is there some module that is loaded in the first case that is not loaded in the second one? - If so, which module is it? - If you load that module manually in the installer, does the difference in the output of udevinfo then disappear? It looks like the support for the drive is there. _You_ are best placed to determine what the missing factor in the installer is. What exactly is needed to get the "full" udevinfo output *in the installer*?
Attachment:
pgpMd8nxPMNGR.pgp
Description: PGP signature