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

Re: What happened to debian - does "stable" keep having any meaning?


> Christ Almighty... where have you been?

busy inventing PEBCAK issues :)

> The kernel went to indeterminate drive ordering *years* ago.  That's
> why fstab now uses UUID or LABEL to associate partitions with mount
> points.

Hey, may be u missed some of my writings.

I wrote, that I came to debian at woody time and from then on, I'm used to 
*daily* (!) dist-upgrages

... so the last upgrade was from debian 6.0 to 6.1

And yes of cause - I use LABEL and UUID in fstab for years ;)

If you read my writing carefully, you'll notice that I wrote, that grub has 
problems with changing drive order. 

The point is, in grub.cfg each partition is mentioned by (hd?, msdos?) and hd? 
never matches. Last weeks I managed grub update errors by manually editing 
grub.cfg (I know it should not be done, but it was the only way for me to get 
the system running).

> Stable probably WILL break at updates, but it SHOULDN'T between updates.

I don't remember, when I came to debian stable, guess that will be more than 5 
years - and during that time, *no* "dist-upgrade" *ever* broke my system.
- til today -
Therefore - for me - debian stable shows up, what's possible to OS stability.

Now I built a new partition, where I installed Ubuntu and now I can boot in my 
"old" Debian stable system having the controller plugged in - using grub from 

... by the way: the controller is this (excerpt from lspci):
SCSI storage controller: HighPoint Technologies, Inc. RocketRAID 230x 4 Port 
SATA-II Controller (rev 02)
and the mainboard is a GA880GM-UD2H
Boot-drive is an Intel X25-V and /usr and /var are on OCZ Vertex 2E each.

It has been said, that debian 6.0 is completely free - so if the controller 
worked the last months, what is more free now, that it won't work with 6.01?

Does anyone know a tool, that can recover (deleted) partion table from disks > 
Any hint is appreciated.

kind regards


Reply to: