On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:43:12AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >And what do dpkg and aptitude think now? > > They still showed the file, it wasn't forgotten as the previous reply stated > it would be. For some reason, it did finally go ahead and get through the > installation. Not sure what file needed it's head examined.
One of the postinst or postrm scripts, I'll wager. Sometimes if a script
like that fails to exit gracefully on failure, it'll hang the system. I
wasn't entirely correct in the original statement about dpkg forgetting the
package. It merely forgot about the routine that was hanging it up, and
allowed processes to otherwise complete - unsticking the system.
>
> >Also, why do you think make-kpkg called
> >mkinitramfs? Maybe a switch left on in the kernel .config?
>
> Well, I'm not sure and I don't have the time to dig, but I would guess the
> version of initramfs-tools that was installed tried to run regardless of
> whether it needed to or not.
Hmm. I just saw a strange thing on another Linux when compiling a
non-initramfs 2.6.26 kernel. When I left the initramfs switch on in the
config, the resulting binary was looking for an initramfs on boot, and
refused to go to the on-disc root fs. Why I asked...
Regards,
Rook
--
... "Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?"
Microsoft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !!
-- Felix von Leitner, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
