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

Bug#684265: Debian Installer 7.0 Beta2 release bug #684265

On Sep 13, 2012, at 5:49 AM, Milan Kupcevic wrote:

When I load the fuse module manually os-prober works fine.

Therefore solution for bug reports 684265, 686314, 686631, 687286 is to
create fuse-modules udeb package. Patch is available here:


Other problems related to listing other OS's in grub menu, that may or
may not be related to os-prober, are described in bug reports 587397,
603107, 608025, 608219, 609251.

If you see similar problems related to LVM please file a separate bug


We seem to have solved about a third of the problems uncovered in investigating this bug:

1) It seems likely that adding a udeb for fuse-modules will allow os- prober to identify other Linux OS root partitions and get them added to the boot-loader config file... But only as long as those partitions are not LVM partitions.

I have not performed definitive experiments to verify either half of this assertion, but the evidence so far does point in that direction. When can I expect the "udeb for fuse" fix to be included in an upcoming daily iso? I'll be happy to test it when it's available.

2) We have not yet identified the ingredient that makes the boot- loader installer unable to handle Linux OS root on LVM partitions correctly. I'm willing to pursue the issue thru to its conclusion, if someone who knows the installer internals better will guide me.

3) It would be nice if all boot-loader installers were as vigilant as the current grub installer. The grub installer warns the user if it finds only one OS partition (the one it's installing for) and asks if she wants to go ahead with a process that may have to be re-done after the install completes, due to having missed other OS roots.

From my own personal perspective, the one particular boot-loader installer I would like this "extra vigilant" feature for is the powerpc yaboot installer. I would file a wishlist bugreport on this issue if I only knew which package to file it against. Can anyone suggest a good candidate?



Reply to: