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

Bug#595793: Info received (Bug#595793: installation-reports Squeeze Doesn't populate /etc/fstab)



OK, I tested further by adding a new SATA (my system has the
connectors for 2 internal IDE (only 1 is used for DVD drive) and 4
internal SATA drives (2 & 3 are populated) SATA1 is a eSATA external
drive so sometimes it is there and sometimes it isn't.

So, I added the eSATA drive but it wasn't auto recognized - but that's
OK as WinXP can't do that either; so I rebooted.  The system rebooted
properly and rewrote the /etc/fstab as the new type using UUIDs
instead of being static; so now it looks like this:

# /etc/fstab: static file system information.
#
# Use 'vol_id --uuid' to print the universally unique identifier for a
# device; this may be used with UUID= as a more robust way to name devices
# that works even if disks are added and removed. See fstab(5).
#
# <file system> <mount point>   <type>  <options>       <dump>  <pass>
proc            /proc           proc    defaults        0       0
# / was on /dev/sdf2 during installation
UUID=435e5b28-e596-47a4-9f9c-f2f26faa356a /               ext3
errors=remount-ro 0       1
# /sneex was on /dev/sde3 during installation
UUID=e057f528-1c2f-4a5d-8c16-419d76d9802b /sneex          ext3
defaults        0       2
# swap was on /dev/sde2 during installation
UUID=2e45a7e5-8c6b-440d-8802-ce58a7fd6f7a none            swap    sw
           0       0
/dev/scd0       /media/cdrom0   udf,iso9660 user,noauto     0       0

The root file system used to be on /dev/sda and now is on /dev/sdc --
but so far the system appears to work as it should.

Please leave bug open so I can add further testing if anything weird
comes up (or close and I'll submit a new bug and refer back to this
bug number.)

Overall, except for a little weirdness during package selection
everything seems to working great  :)

Thx/Bill

PS -- vol_id --uuid   -->  'vol_id' doesn't exist and I don't see a
reference to it in the man pages.



Reply to: