RE: /boot

["Harry Cochran" <h.cochran@comcast.net>]

>On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 08:55:41AM -0500, Harry Cochran wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 1:12AM -0500, Grant Grundler wrote:
>>>ls -l /boot
>> SinoHub5:/# ls -l /boot
>> total 0
>>
>>>The "ls" command assumes the f0 partition is mounted on /boot.
>>
>> Well I was feeling pretty good until I saw ls -l /boot come back with
total
>> 0. I assume that's bad news. You didn't say to change init-partitioned to
>> update-partitioned, so maybe I screwed up there. Should I have just
gotten
>> rid of that line?

On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:46:41AM -0500, Stuart Brady wrote:

>If sda1 is mounted on /boot and it is empty, then yes, that's bad.  If I
>understand correctly, --init-partition formats the partition, and as a
>result, clears any files that were it previously held...

Am I right that with /dev/sda1 mounted as /boot, if I am at say /var a
cd /boot should go to the /dev/sda1 partition? If so, that /boot is empty as
shown above.

Now for the bad news ... cd / and then cd boot which should bring me to the
boot directory under the root is also empty. Arrrg. Will an apt-get install
kernel-image-2.6.8-2-32-smp reload /dev/sda1 with the files I need to boot?

>If that's right, it's better to pass --init-partition to palo, than it
>is to add --init-partition in palo.conf, since you won't have to worry
>about changing it back afterwards.

Assuming I can get a loadable kernel and initrd.img back on the /boot on
/dev/sda1/, I guess I don't need --update-partitioned /dev/sda in palo.conf.
Can you please confirm that?

>You'll have to copy the files from /boot again (using /mnt for sda1,
>making sure you've unmounted /boot first).
>--
>Stuart Brady

Also I did cd /var and then tried umount /boot and got "device is busy"
still. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks for your help Stuart!

Harry