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

Help. Odd install problems.



I tried posting this question a while ago, but I received no reponses.
I looked in the mailing list archives and it doesn't appear there
either, which is probably why I got no responses.  Anyway, here's my
problem.

I'm trying to install Debian 2.2 on an old PS/2 386.  It was running
Debian 2.0 without any problems, but the HD crashed and I figured I'd
get a slightly bigger HD and install 2.2 on it.  I haven't been able
to get 2.2 to install and I can't find 2.0 install disks anymore (no
CD-Rom drive).  I'd like to get 2.2 on this if possible.

Basically I get through the install process with no problems, but when
it tries to run lilo it fails.  The entire kernel is below the sector
limit for old bioses.  Even so, the install program warns me that I'm
not installing it on the first device on the chain even though the
device is /dev/eda.  I don't know enough ESDI drives to know if they
have a master/slave setting, but the kernel finding it as /dev/eda
should mean it's the first drive on the chain right?  I've tried
installing it on /dev/eda and /dev/eda1 and both produce the same
results.  I tried dropping to the console and running lilo manually,
but it doesn't appear to recognize the drive as being mounted.  It
says to mount the target drive under /target, but it's already
mounted.  I even tried unounting it and remounting it, but lilo
doesn't seem to see it.  This completely baffles me.

So then I created a boot diskette and tried to boot the kernel
installed on the HD, but that doesn't work either.  Just after it
recognizes the ESDI HD, I get an error like this:

unable to exec: /usr/sbin/modprobe -t -u binfmt-0000

The - options are probably wrong, but that's the gist of the error
message.  This message repeats forever and the system won't boot.
I've tried the newest set of install floppies, but this still happens.
Does anyone have any idea what is causing these problems or how to fix
them/get around them so I can install the system?  Why would 2.0 work
and not 2.2?  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Rob



Reply to: