Hi, Please do not blame Herbert for this, since I am responsible for the kernel-image scripts. >>"Arto" == Arto Astala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Arto> I upgraded to a new snapshot of hamm (1997-12-13) and dselect Arto> naturally marked for upgrade everything I had. I also noticed Arto> the new kernel 2.0.32 and installed it. Oooooh. Arto> Now, this is what I believe what happened. Arto> When configuring kernel it asks if I want to make boot disk. I Arto> did want. Then it asks something like "Hmm. You seem to have new Arto> superformat, want to use it?" and I felt I'm taking risks Arto> already and I don't want to answer yes to anything this Arto> dubious. Then it tried to create floppy with old format (and Arto> with non-existing device as well?) but didn't succeed. There was Arto> no obvious way to back up to "Hmmm. ..." or otherwise correct Arto> the situation. ( Later I found a note to the effect that use Arto> superformat since it obsoletes the older one and is better and Arto> removes some /fev/fd* entries. I think that *if* superformat is Arto> safe to use it should be the default. It probably should be the Arto> default anyway, since the alternative does not work. Why give Arto> user possibility to give wrong answer when script can detect the Arto> right one. The reason that the script asks about using superformat stems from the days when superformat was newly introduced; and it had problems. If that has indeed changed, I shall make the script not ask. Actually, embarrasingly enough, niether seems to work for me: __> fdformat /dev/fd0 get geometry parameters: Operation not supported by device __> superformat /dev/fd0 hd old capacity=12500 Measuring drive 0's raw capacity Fatal error while measuring raw capacity 0: 40 1: 04 2: 00 3: 00 4: 00 5: 01 6: 08 __> I think I may well remove this option of formatting the floppy. It has aways given me problems. Arto> I also think that configuration should notice that Arto> boot disk was not created and e.g. not run lilo or at least ask Arto> about it. ) What do you want the process to do on errors? abort? It does tell the installer how to manually create a boot disk. I did not think aborting the install because of a failure of the boot disk creation was necessary. And it does ask you if you want to run lilo. The process does stop, and inform you about failure to write a boot floppy. You have to hit return to proceed. It warns about not being able to reboot the system. At this point, unless lilo is run, the system is unbootable. Not running lilo is wrong, IMHO. Arto> Then configuring kernel asks if I want to use old lilo.config of Arto> let him create a new one. Silly me, I thought that lilo 20 might Arto> need something new, let there be new config. A new config there Arto> was, lilo was run, and the system was unbootable. (Well, maybe I Arto> fumbled with it a bit afterwards.) What was the error? was the new lilo.conf incorrect? in what way? Arto> ( Aside from possible lilo version problem, since upgrade from Arto> 19 to 20 was unpacked but not configured at this time, there are Arto> some other problems. Hmm ;-(. Arto> First, I think that the default should be Arto> to append lines to existing lilo.config since that presumably Arto> worked in the last boot. The lilo file created is simple, but it should allow the system to be upgraded; provided, of course, that lilo is available ;-(. Appending to an existing file is fraught with complications, and is unlikely to create a valid lilo.conf. If one has a valid lilo.conf, the dafault is to use it. Arto> If lilo 20 is installed then no symlinks should be used or Arto> changed. Why? Arto> Maybe that should be the case anyway, since the real Arto> lilo.config may reside in some other place in multi boot Arto> machines? On my multiboot machine, it does not. If people are changing the Debian conventions, I think they should be capable of dealing with the consequences. Arto> Then running lilo should be optional. It is. Arto> If no links have been broken then not running lilo does not Arto> break anything, only new kernel is not yet used. Links are not broken, they are updated. Arto> The generated lilo.config file was broken, since my partition, Arto> /dev/hda5, was a logical one, and lilo gave error for that. Is Arto> there a way of detecting the partition type? ) I do not know. Anybody? Arto> That was it. Although the consequences were not so nice, it was Arto> mostly my mistake, but I would recommend that you do not upgrade Arto> kernel and lilo without booting in between. I wholeheartedly agree. Arto> A couple questions about it all: Arto> Is it necessary or even possible to coordinate upgrades of Arto> kernel and bootloader so that their upgrades are not Arto> interleaved? This should be a question for the Deity list. Arto> Is it possible to safely generate bootloader config file or Arto> would it be better to show message "Will mail more info to you, Arto> read it before booting" and pause to make sure that user reads Arto> it. (and mail the info) The genrated config file was as safe as I could make it. Any enhancements shall be gratefully accepted. I'll think about extended partition types and all. (I think the solution is not to blow away a hand crafted lilo.conf). Mailing the info should not be required; just look into /usr/doc/lilo and read the manual there. I think I'll remove the option of formatting the floppy and put dire warnings all over the place. manoj -- "And we heard him exclaim As he started to roam: `I'm a hologram, kids, please don't try this at home!'" Bob Violence Howie Chaykin's little animated 3-dimensional darling, Bob Violence Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .