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

Bug#1015172: marked as done (wiki.debian.org: Sid installation fails - No kernel modules found - Wiki issue)



Piscium <groknok@gmail.com> (2022-07-17):
> The Bullseye file that I used to successfully install Sid [3] is
> timestamped 05-Jul-2022 15:57, which is only 12 days old. If you
> compare the two links below in [2] and [3], the difference is that [2]
> is in unstable (one year old file) and [3] is in bullseye (12 days
> old). The bullseye file is recent whereas the Sid file is ancient.
> This is counter-intuitive.

We shouldn't have let so much time go by without putting out an alpha
release, so yes, the situation you're describing is less than ideal.

The debian-installer package got updated for the 11.4 point release
(bullseye), and it was propagated upward (prop-up) to testing/unstable
to satisfy version constraints; but the same doesn't happen for the
contents of the installer-* directories, hence the timestamp differences
you're seeing.

> Cyril said "there seem to be some weird things going on, mixing and
> matching bits from bullseye and unstable?". Yes, it seems so, or at
> least something along those lines.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
> [2] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
> (FAILURE)
> [3] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/bullseye/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
> (SUCCESS)

Until an alpha release of the installer finds its way to unstable, I'd
advise using daily builds:
  https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/daily-build-overview.html
  https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/

Note that the netboot mini.iso builds fine, but using lvm2 at runtime is
likely to be problematic due to:
  https://bugs.debian.org/1015174


Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org)            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: