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

Bug#613200: linux-base: lilo.conf not updated to UUIDs for kernels not in /



On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 13:19 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Package: linux-base
> Version: 2.6.32-30
> 
> I upgraded my Debian box to squeeze today, and after the initial
> "install new kernel and udev" the system didn't boot because
> linux-base hadn't correctly updated lilo.conf to use UUIDs rather
> than /dev/hd*.
> 
> My lilo.conf had a stanza for the kernel like this:
> # Linux kernel options:
> image=/boot/vmlinuz       # where to find it...
>   initrd=/boot/initrd.img
>   label=Linux             # name to type to boot it
>   alias=l 
>   root=/dev/hdb2          # Linux partition is D: 2nd partition
>   read-only               # don't allow writes until it's been checked
> 
> ...and linux-base's postinst didn't update the root= parameter.
> 
> This appears to be because _lilo_update() decides whether
> to update an image= stanza using this regex:
> 
>            $in_generic = ($value =~ m|^/vmlinuz(?:\.old)?$|);
> 
> ...which will only match if you were keeping your kernels
> in /, not if they're in /boot/ as mine are.

This has nothing to do with where the kernel images are (they are always
installed in /boot), but only to do with where the symlinks are created.
The default is to create them in /, but I recall there is an option (now
deprecated) to create them in /boot.  I suppose we could check for that
as well.

> Given that once you're running the new kernel lilo will
> fail to handle the stanzas with /dev/hd* in them:
>  Fatal: Illegal 'root=' specification: /dev/hdb2
> 
> it seems to me that the best approach would be to rewrite
> them in all image= stanzas.

No, this is wrong because custom kernel configurations which do not use
an initramfs cannot interpret UUID specifications.

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: