Le samedi 31 août 2013 à 20:14 +0100, Ian Campbell a écrit : > On Sat, 2013-08-31 at 21:08 +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > Le samedi 31 août 2013 à 20:01 +0100, Ian Campbell a écrit : > > > > In any case, there is a bug there -- my guess is that > > > > flash-kernel-installer hangs because of the partitioning layout for some > > > > reason. Note that running flash-kernel from the installed working system > > > > with my custom layout did work. > > > > > > That's very odd. I'm afraid that without breaking in to get some logs > > > I'm not sure how to take this any further. > > > > Perhaps you could reproduce the bug by using my custom partitioning > > layout and try to get logs from there? > > My spare DP is in the middle of being used to debug #719680. > > Please can you file a bug with the info from this thread, lets say > against flash-kernel for the time being, so this doesn't get forgotten.
Sure, I'll do it soon enough. >From the working installation's installer syslog, I can tell that generating a new initramfs and the u-boot images comes right next after the u-boot-tools's installation. Now my guess is that the problem is in flash-kernel's flash_kernel_set_root, which is the one dealing with the rootfs. In a case, it is possible that flash_kernel_set_root waits for stdin and hence would make the whole thing hang (read _ignored) in the installer context. It is called as a hook when generating the initramfs. It seems like a long shot since this case is not supposed to be reached, but I also noticed that the images I generated on the working installation wouldn't boot without the root=/dev/sda2 cmdline argument from the bootloader (and I don't mean the ones I generated using my computer and uploaded to the Dreamplug to make it boot the first time). However I didn't get the error message that's supposed to come before (read _ignored). So I might very well be wrong, but there is no doubt the issue happens when running something from flash-kernel, and flash_kernel_set_root is definitely related to the rootfs. What do you think? > I've reinstalled dozens of times on my spare one (testing the installer) > and it's not showing any signs. If it was going to die after a single > digit number of installations it probably wouldn't be suitable to use in > general either. That's good to know -- thanks for sharing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
