>On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 08:55:41AM -0500, Harry Cochran wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 1:12AM -0500, Grant Grundler wrote: >>>ls -l /boot >> SinoHub5:/# ls -l /boot >> total 0 >> >>>The "ls" command assumes the f0 partition is mounted on /boot. >> >> Well I was feeling pretty good until I saw ls -l /boot come back with total >> 0. I assume that's bad news. You didn't say to change init-partitioned to >> update-partitioned, so maybe I screwed up there. Should I have just gotten >> rid of that line?
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:46:41AM -0500, Stuart Brady wrote: >If sda1 is mounted on /boot and it is empty, then yes, that's bad. If I >understand correctly, --init-partition formats the partition, and as a >result, clears any files that were it previously held... Am I right that with /dev/sda1 mounted as /boot, if I am at say /var a cd /boot should go to the /dev/sda1 partition? If so, that /boot is empty as shown above. Now for the bad news ... cd / and then cd boot which should bring me to the boot directory under the root is also empty. Arrrg. Will an apt-get install kernel-image-2.6.8-2-32-smp reload /dev/sda1 with the files I need to boot? >If that's right, it's better to pass --init-partition to palo, than it >is to add --init-partition in palo.conf, since you won't have to worry >about changing it back afterwards. Assuming I can get a loadable kernel and initrd.img back on the /boot on /dev/sda1/, I guess I don't need --update-partitioned /dev/sda in palo.conf. Can you please confirm that? >You'll have to copy the files from /boot again (using /mnt for sda1, >making sure you've unmounted /boot first). >-- >Stuart Brady Also I did cd /var and then tried umount /boot and got "device is busy" still. What am I doing wrong? Thanks for your help Stuart! Harry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
