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

Bug#576608: linux-base: "Invalid output format udev" during configuration



On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 14:09 -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Package: linux-base
> Version: 2.6.32-10
> 
> During an upgrade that prompted me to replace device names by
> UUIDs in /etc/fstab, a few error messages were printed on the
> console:
> 
>     Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-10) ...
>     Invalid output format udev. Choose from value,
>             device, list, or full
>     Invalid output format udev. Choose from value,
>             device, list, or full
>     Invalid output format udev. Choose from value,
>             device, list, or full
>     Searching for GRUB installation directory ... found: /boot/grub
>     Searching for default file ... found: /boot/grub/default
>     Testing for an existing GRUB menu.lst file ... found: /boot/grub/menu.lst
>     Searching for splash image ... none found, skipping ...
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.32-trunk-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.32-4-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.28-1-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.26-1-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.24-1-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.22-1-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18-4-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18-3-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18-1-686
>     Found kernel: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.17-2-686
>     Updating /boot/grub/menu.lst ... done
> 
> The upgrade did seem to complete smoothly but the error messages
> still seem a bit worrisome.

The upgrade script calls 'blkid' (part of the util-linux package) to get
information about the existing device labels and UUIDs.  This command
supports several different output formats but the 'udev' format works
best for us.  It looks like we need to depend on a recent version of
util-linux.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: