Re: grub install bug?
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 08:39:29PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Thierry" == Thierry Laronde <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Thierry> Strange. The only stage physically copied is stage1
> Thierry> (eventually *stage1_5), so I can't see where and when
> Thierry> another file can be corrupted.
> However, the problem is 100% reproducible, just install grub using grub
> 0.5.93.1, when the version in /boot/grub is 0.5.95.
> however, the problem is not reproducible anymore <grin>, so I think we
> can close this problem as being caused by the dodgy hardware.
Okuji is probably right when he says not to waste time about a version that is
now obsolete. But I had prefered to understand who is/was responsible for the
mess (hardware or software) and to be sure that we are not missing something
that will re-appear later.
To end the thread, say that if the result is the
same with grub installed on hard disk and grub on floppy (not modified, if I
have correctly understood), the problem is that the fs has been corrupted in
some way, and that reinstalling gnumach resets correctly the fs informations
for accessing the relevant blocks for the file (the fs seems right, superblocks
are not altered, but the information for this very file `gnumach.gz' were no
Thierry LARONDE, Centre de Ressources Informatiques, Archamps - France
PingOO, serveur de com sur distribution GNU/Linux: http://www.pingoo.org