On 11/26/2011 08:17 AM, Harry Putnam wrote:
Bob Proulx writes:
How does the system boot up if /boot is not mounted?
You don't need /boot mounted in order to boot. It only needs to be
mounted in order to be updated. Booting happens before the operating
system is loaded and so those files ar
Bob Proulx writes:
>> How does the system boot up if /boot is not mounted?
>
> You don't need /boot mounted in order to boot. It only needs to be
> mounted in order to be updated. Booting happens before the operating
> system is loaded and so those files are not needed at operating system
> tim
Wayne Topa wrote:
> How does the system boot up if /boot is not mounted?
You don't need /boot mounted in order to boot. It only needs to be
mounted in order to be updated. Booting happens before the operating
system is loaded and so those files are not needed at operating system
time. By the ti
Bob Proulx writes:
>> But even with that, yes, it was sloppy not to catch it, but isn't that
>> just the kind of place where a warning of some kind might be well
>> placed.
>
> It is okay if you want to keep your /boot not mounted and only mount
> it when needed. That's fine. But I think it is
Wayne Topa writes:
[...]
> I have only been using Debian since 1993, 18 years, and do not recall
> ever having boot 'not' mounted. This is on syatems where I had boot
> on a separate partition and, currently, everything on one partition.
I'll defer here. As I mentioned... I only tinkered with
Harry Putnam wrote:
> I haven't kept boot mounted for yrs, and I hadn't noticed that grub
> was to be updated... there was 187 pgks, further its not automatically
> apparent that grub.cfg resides on boot... not all of grubs files do.
> I'm very new to grub2.
>
> But even with that, yes, it was slo
On 11/24/2011 08:12 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 09:41:12 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
2) Should it be considered a bug that grub files are written when boot
is not mounted.
A file can be written to any directory, mounted or not. No bug here.
Seems like if t
On Fri 25 Nov 2011 at 07:40:02 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
>
> Camaleón wrote:
> >> > If the package is installed and the config file needs to be updated the
> >> > upgrade routine uses to ask what to do (keep the old file, compare both,
> >> > replace it with the nre one...). If the partition w
Camaleón wrote:
>> > If the package is installed and the config file needs to be updated the
>> > upgrade routine uses to ask what to do (keep the old file, compare both,
>> > replace it with the nre one...). If the partition where the file lies is
>> > not mounted then it's up to the admin use
On Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 09:41:12 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> 2) Should it be considered a bug that grub files are written when boot
>is not mounted.
A file can be written to any directory, mounted or not. No bug here.
> Seems like if the routine notices (which it does)
>
On Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 16:11:43 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
> > If the package is installed and the config file needs to be updated the
> > upgrade routine uses to ask what to do (keep the old file, compare both,
> > replace it with the nre one...). If the partition where th
Alex Mestiashvili writes:
> Can't really imagine why /boot shouldn't be mounted ..
> of course it is possible , but upgrading grub without having /boot
> mounted sounds for me like shooting himself in the leg .
I haven't kept boot mounted for yrs, and I hadn't noticed that grub
was to be
Alex Mestiashvili writes:
>> 3) About etc resolv.conf being rendered useless during update: That
>>two seems like it should be bug
>>
> Could you check that you don't have resolvconf installed ?
> if yes than you should configure it or remove ...
>>I pulled out an old backup with the
Camaleón writes:
>> 2) Should it be considered a bug that grub files are written when boot
>>is not mounted. Seems like if the routine notices (which it does)
>>that those files are absent, should there not be further code to
>>check for boot being mounted?
>>It seems it should n
On Thu 24 Nov 2011 at 09:41:12 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Running wheezy
>
> My updates were held up for a few days because of a problem involving
> backuppc not uninstalling properly... now solved.
>
> So now I've ran the update gui. During this update 187 pkgs were
> involved. One of them w
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 09:41:12AM -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
> 3) About etc resolv.conf being rendered useless during update: That
>two seems like it should be bug
>
>I pulled out an old backup with the right stuff in it and overwrote
>/etc/resolv.conf. I then proceeded to make the f
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:41:12 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
(...)
> So, three things:
> 1) Do I need to do anything special about the upgrade
>in compiler?
No unless you need a specific gcc version to compile a package with such
requirements.
> 2) Should it be considered a bug that grub files
On 11/24/2011 04:41 PM, Harry Putnam wrote:
> Running wheezy
>
> My updates were held up for a few days because of a problem involving
> backuppc not uninstalling properly... now solved.
>
> So now I've ran the update gui. During this update 187 pkgs were
> involved. One of them was gcc-4.6. So I
Running wheezy
My updates were held up for a few days because of a problem involving
backuppc not uninstalling properly... now solved.
So now I've ran the update gui. During this update 187 pkgs were
involved. One of them was gcc-4.6. So I now have 4.5 and 4.6
installed.
I noticed that a new g
19 matches
Mail list logo
