On Wed 19 Jul 2017 at 19:57:57 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Pascal Hambourg composed on 2017-07-20 0:40 (UTC+0200):
>
> > Felix Miata composed:
>
> >> ...is not
> >> always adequate. 240/63, another very common configuration...
>
> > IME, 31 KiB is still enough to contain a core image when not
Le 20/07/2017 à 01:57, Felix Miata a écrit :
Pascal Hambourg composed on 2017-07-20 0:40 (UTC+0200):
Felix Miata composed:
...is not
always adequate. 240/63, another very common configuration...
IME, 31 KiB is still enough to contain a core image when not needing
costly features such as b
Pascal Hambourg composed on 2017-07-20 0:40 (UTC+0200):
> Felix Miata composed:
>> ...is not
>> always adequate. 240/63, another very common configuration...
> IME, 31 KiB is still enough to contain a core image when not needing
> costly features such as btrfs, LVM or RAID support.
That's what
Le 19/07/2017 à 20:54, Felix Miata a écrit :
On an old PATA disk, as you call IDE or hda, the partitioning scheme is very
likely the cause of the failure to install to sda, as such schemes can more
frequently than we'd like provide insufficient room on the boot track to fit
Grub2's bloated loade
Hans composed on 2017-07-19 18:58 (UTC+0200):
>> The hdX naming scheme went away a long time ago - all normal disks
>> should be showing us as sdX whether they're connected via IDE (PATA),
>> SATA, SCSI or whatever.
>> Did the installer actually fail to install the bootloader? If so, what
>> erro
Hi Thomas,
> The problem is with GRUB's refusal or failure to accept the disk in
> the state it is.
>
> What do you get as output if you run on the rescue system:
>
> fdisk -lu /dev/hda
>
>
I am sorry, that I will not be able to check this out any more. As it was not
my computer, I installe
Le 19/07/2017 à 18:58, Hans a écrit :
The text gui offered me MBR, /dev/sda1 (mounted to /boot) and /dev/sda5
(mounted to /), then I choose mbr and got a red screen, with the very useful
information "The grub bootloader could not be installed".
You can get more useful information in the instal
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> No one (except me) will install debian 9 on an IDE drive nowadays!
That's not the point. IDE drives are still supported. But they appear
as /dev/sdN rather than as /dev/hdX.
IDE is well practiced, because the man pages of qemu-system-i386
and qemu-system-x86_64 say:
The Q
Hi Steve,
> The hdX naming scheme went away a long time ago - all normal disks
> should be showing us as sdX whether they're connected via IDE (PATA),
> SATA, SCSI or whatever.
>
> Did the installer actually fail to install the bootloader? If so, what
> errors did you get?
The text gui offered m
Hi,
Hans wrote:
> I tried to install debian 9 on an older computer with an IDE hdd. The
> installation went fine, until the installer wantet to install grub into the
> mbr.
> [...]
> Is this issue known at all?
The chances for recognition increases if tangible info is given.
E.g. original messa
Hans wrote:
>
>I tried to install debian 9 on an older computer with an IDE hdd. The
>installation went fine, until the installer wantet to install grub into the
>mbr.
>
>The problem: The installer sees the drive as /dev/sda and not, as it should
>be, as /dev/hda.
>
>Then I tried to install the
11 matches
Mail list logo
