Bug#783323: Broken configuration for OpenBlocks AX3-4
(CCing Nobuhiro who contributed the flash-kernel db entry for this
device)
On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 15:40 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-04-26 at 00:39 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:39:44 +0100 Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> > > Secondly, if the installation uses LVM, /dev/sda1 is the /boot
> > > partition, not the root partition. After fixing the first problem,
> > > flash-kernel fails like this:
> >
> > Actually, this doesn't depend on LVM. The installer always creates a
> > separate /boot partition using the ext2 filesystem, and this makes sense
> > as u-boot generally doesn't support ext4. So I think that the /boot
> > prefix should be removed from the paths for this entry. (And maybe many
> > other entries.)
>
> I think you are likely correct.
>
> I'm considering declaring that all such db fields are always relative
> to /boot and having f-k decide if it needs to prepend /boot or not,
> perhaps based on "stat -c %m /boot" or something similar.
Actually, thinking a bit harder...
Looking back at your original error:
mv: cannot move '/tmp/flash-kernel.3ft8lyny/uImage' to '/tmp/flash-kernel.V2iwAjyz//boot/uImage': No such file or directory
I think this is because the db entry includes a Boot-Device. This is
supposed to be used for devices where the firmware boots from a
partition which is not typically mounted (i.e. a special VFAT
partition), hence things in /tmp before copying there.
For device which can boot from a sensible filesystem then Boot-Device
shouldn't be used and things will end up in /boot (separate or
otherwise).
Essentially if Boot-Device is set then Boot-*-Path should be relative to
that device, if Boot-Device is not set then Boot-*-Path are relative
to /.
I think /dev/sda1 is your actual /boot and using Boot-Device in that
case is wrong. If you remove it do things improve?
It seems that the code which handles the Boot-Device case is buggy in
the face of a firmware partition which has some hierarchy to it.
Ian.
Reply to: