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

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


Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> Now, moving between 6.0.0 and 6.0.1 shouldn't have been a problem, but I
> suspect you actually would have had issues rebooting your 6.0.0 system even
> without the 6.0.1 updates, since you didn't have your fstab in order.

Grub can't be wrong, cause it is working in your system. 
So, the only conclusion is: my fstab must be wrong.

Hm ...

I think, that's the same wrong reduction of facts, than my saying: grub is 

So let me state, debian 6.0 was working fine til the last update.

On a complex system (yes, for me, linux is quite a complex system) the truth 
may be somewhat different. May be, we both are wrong.

So I did some researches with my system constellation (all 8 drives active):

1.) A fresh installation from debian 6.0 netinst CD results in an unbootable 
system, even using a single partition installation target.

2.) following the advices of:
	grub-install /dev/disk/by-id/ata-INTEL_SSDSA2M040G2GC_CVGB0061021D040GGN
 results in an unbootable system

3.) at first sight it looks like ubuntu 10.10 is using the same grub variant, 
but a closer look shows, that on ubuntu there's no /boot/device.map

4.) booting the debian 6.0 netinst CD in rescue64 mode and chrooting the 
ubuntu installation, a "grub-install /dev/sde" brings my system back into play

Don't take me wrong! I'm no friend of ubuntu and changing to ubuntu is no 
acceptable solution for me.
But - if having an unused ubuntu installation is the only solution to get a 
bootable system - of cause, I will use it. 

Well, I stil believe, that some of the last update was not good enuf for 
debian stable ...

kind regards


Reply to: