On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:42:42 -0400, Stephen Powell wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:20:07 -0400 (EDT), Camaleón wrote:
>> How is that? Can't LiLo manage a multiboot menu or is a personal
>> configuration? :-?
>
> Of course it can. But the only thing that differs between the two
> kernels is the kernel image and its corresponding initial RAM file
> system image. They share the same permanent root file system.
Mmmm, understood.
But it should be easier to configure two different root filesystsems to
try with different setups, just in this case and just for testing.
For example (quick and dirty sample):
***
boot=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04
### LILO -5 kernel
image=/boot/vmlinuz
label=Linux
root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04
initrd=/boot/initrd.img
#
### LILO -3 kernel
image=/boot/vmlinuz.old
label=LinuxOld
root=/dev/sda2
initrd=/boot/initrd.img.old
optional
***
Or:
***
boot=/dev/sda2
### LILO -5 kernel
image=/boot/vmlinuz
label=Linux
root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04
initrd=/boot/initrd.img
#
### LILO -3 kernel
image=/boot/vmlinuz.old
label=LinuxOld
root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04
initrd=/boot/initrd.img.old
optional
***
And check if booting the old kernel in any of that way works.
>> Can you copy/paste the relevant "lilo.conf" boot entries you are using
>> for both, the ones that boot "-3" kernel and the ones that boot "-5"
>> kernel?
>
> If you want the exact configuration file, that will have to wait for
> about seven hours, until I have access to that machine again. But
> perhaps you will be satisfied with an approximation for now. Here is an
> approximation of what it looks like based on another machine. The uuids
> used in this example are from this substitute machine:
(...)
> boot=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 compact
> root=/dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 read-only
> image=/boot/vmlinuz.old
> label=LinuxOld
> initrd=/boot/initrd.img.old
> optional
I do not know LILO at all, but GRUB can fail with "device not found" when
has problems for locating the root device node. And I'm not sure at what
extent a mix of both (GRUB and kernel versions) have support for "ID" or
"UUID" naming :-?
> I really don't think that the problem is in lilo (although I haven't
> ruled that out yet). lilo does successfully boot the old kernel. But
> it hangs part-way through the boot process. Under the 2.6.32-3 kernel,
> /dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 is a symbolic
> link to /dev/hda2. Under the 2.6.32-5 kernel,
> /dev/disk/by-uuid/04db5929-51e6-424a-ac5b-a592b96b9d04 is a symbolic
> link to /dev/sda2. And in both cases, everything under /dev is a
> virtual file system created by udev.
>
> I suspect that the problem is in /etc/fstab, where similar entries are
> used, and I suspect that it has to do with the timing of when udev
> creates the symbolic link versus when it is being referenced. But that
> is just a hunch at this point.
I'm interested in seeing how your testing goes.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.06.23.22.05...@gmail.com
