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

Re: Lilo and 2 disk drives



Debs:

Here is the followup and solution.

If a kernel image is on a different hard drive, you must temporarily mount
that file system and point the lilo.conf to the kernel image on it before
you run lilo.

So the debian image part of lilo.conf below could look like this:

image=/debian/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.34
	label=debian
	root=/dev/hdb1
	read-only

if you have temporarily mounted the debian filesystem on /debian.

The point is that the location for the kernel image on a different hard
drive must be visible to lilo _when_ you run the lilo command. At that
point, lilo translates that into sectors and such for the boot loader.
Later, if it's not mounted there, who cares? As long as lilo can find it
when you type "lilo".

> I have two hard drives, partitioned this way:
> 
> /dev/hda1 dos partition
> /dev/hda4 Redhat
> /dev/hdb2 Debian
> 
> Here's my lilo.conf, sitting on /dev/hda:
> 
> boot=/dev/hda
> map=/boot/map
> install=/boot/boot.b
> prompt
> timeout=100
> image=/boot/vmlinuz
> 	label=redhat
> 	root=/dev/hda4
> 	read-only
> other=/dev/hda2
> 	label=dos
> 	table=/dev/hda
> image=/boot/vmlinuz-debian
> 	label=debian
> 	root=/dev/hdb1
> 	read-only
> image=/boot/vmlinuz.old
> 	label=old-redhat
> 	root=/dev/hda4
> 	read-only
> 
> As you can see, I have a Debian boot image sitting on the Redhat
> partition, which is the only way that lilo will do it. If I change the
> debian part to:
> 
> image=/boot/vmlinuz
> 	label=debian
> 	root=/hdb1
> 	read-only
> 
> and run lilo, it complains that it can't find that kernel image.
> 
> It looks like a Linux kernel image file *must* be on the drive being
> booted from. But it seems like I *should* be able to have to kernel image
> on the root partition of the second hard drive if I want.
> 
> Question: Any way around this? Any way to leave the Debian image on the
> Debian hard drive and still have lilo run properly? Did I do something
> wrong or miss something in the docs?
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 


Reply to: