On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 04:44 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > right - _finally_ i've encountered a requirement to upgrade a 2nd > system that has lvm2 and (in this 2nd case 2.6.18-486) a linux kernel > image, and have encountered the *exact* same problem as is in bugs > 636123 and 638896. this time, however, i was anticipating that > something might go wrong, so was watching out for it.
It is documented that you should completely upgrade from one stable release to the next, before upgrading further: <http://www.debian.org/releases/lenny/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#system-status>, <http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#system-status>. We do not attempt to support or test upgrades that skip a stable release; if they work at all then consider yourself lucky. > the error that is causing the problem is when the linux kernel has > been installed, but then when lvm is upgraded from lvm1 to lvm2. > lvm-common is *removed*, including removing /sbin/vgchange, but that's > not all. Expected because lvm2 conflicts with lvm-common. > here's what happens when the postinst mkinitramfs is called: > > mkdir: cannot create directory /tmp/mkinitramfs_tF5045/lib/udev: File exists > cpio: ./sbin/vgchange: No such file or directory > > now, in this particular test case, the postinst mkinitramfs appears to > have been triggered twice, so the file /boot/initrd-2.6.32-5-686 > exists and is not of zero size. > > in the case of the system(s) under bugs 636123 and 638896, the initrd > file wasn't created - at all. So it's not the exact same problem, is it? > this definitely warrants further investigation. Can you try to reproduce this in an etch-lenny-squeeze upgrade? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Never put off till tomorrow what you can avoid all together.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
