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

Bug#800639: marked as done (os-prober: corrupts windows 7 loader/header)

Your message dated Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:46:36 +0000
with message-id <20151027144636.GB28445@einval.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#800639: os-prober: corrupts windows 7 loader/header
has caused the Debian Bug report #800639,
regarding os-prober: corrupts windows 7 loader/header
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

800639: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=800639
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: os-prober
Version: 1.67
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,
I dunno if I should add this info. on the above 4 bugs or make a new
one, and if in the 4 one, which one. I have been trying to migrate
some systems which have windows 7. I installed Debian testing on those
systems and tried both os-prober 1.66 as well as 1.67 but both of them
corrupt the windows 7 loader. Please let me know if there is any more
information that I can share which would be off help.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (100, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.1.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_IN, LC_CTYPE=en_IN (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages os-prober depends on:
ii  libc6  2.21-0experimental1

os-prober recommends no packages.

os-prober suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

          Shirish Agarwal  शिरीष अग्रवाल
  My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
EB80 462B 08E1 A0DE A73A  2C2F 9F3D C7A4 E1C4 D2D8

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:07:27PM +0530, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>in-line :-
>On 22/10/2015, Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> wrote:
>> OK, that's useful information. I've got a sneaky suspicion on that
>> T440 machine that it may be expecting to boot via UEFI, and you've now
>> installed a Debian system that's booting in BIOS mode. If the system's
>> firmware (aka BIOS) is configured to look for BIOS boot first, that
>> would explain why it's no longer seeing the Windows install. What
>> happens if you go into the firmware setup? Can you change the boot
>> options to try UEFI first, or UEFI only?
>Did that and now both boot, was kinda afraid as debian-uefi boot is
>supposed to be somewhat icky.

icky? I spent months making stuff work...! :-)

>Anyways, the bug is now resolved, thank you.

Awesome - thanks for confirming. I'll close it now. Are both booting
via UEFI OK?

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
 English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on
 occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
 unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."  -- James D. Nicoll

--- End Message ---

Reply to: