Yes, I know. I didn’t say it would not work.
There are symlinks /boot/vmlinuz and /boot/initrd pointing to the current kernel. I know that you don’t use them in your menu.lst.
Whyt don’t you try to copy your entire /boot directory to sda5, edit /etc/fstab accordingly and try root(hd0,4) instead before updating ?
That way this system would be completely independent from the other one.
On 2010-08-31 20:36, xmarko wrote:
>
>> I understand you did a dd copy of the old 11.0 install to a new place
> - and you made some mistake(s).
> maybe I made a mistake.
> but this is the way I always test updates: dd to another partition,
> change root entry in fstab, try to boot that. then update.
> I don’t understand my mistake here.
Forgive me; I think I read in another of your posts that you dd’d the original system, applied a
modification to fstab, then booted that new 11.0 install.
People, lets stop looking for errors in grub or fstab about the partition name, device or any such
thing: it boots, so it is correct.
The problem is in upgrading.
>> If “find” has said there is no fstab, then it is true, there is no
> /etc/fstab.
>
>> from y2log:
>> 2010-08-31 03:34:00 <3> linux(2988) [bash]
> ShellCommand.cc(shellcommand):78 sh: /usr/bin/find: No such file or
> directory
>
> could this mean that “find” itself was not found ?
I also thought that. Not for the first time, too. I believe it means that find failed in locating
its target.
> this would be a problem of the installation system, which is/should be
> mounted / at that time.
> btw. fstab should not be searched in /etc but in /mnt/etc which is the
> target for update.
Yes, you are correct. The point is moot after I learned that this partition boots. Because it boots,
there is no doubt about that?
Double check it, give it a different hostname.
>> Is the DVD of the same architecture? …
> yes, the DVD is also i586.
>
>> … If it is not, it will not find the root partition.
> why that ?
Because I suddenly remembered that it doesn’t.
It happened to me. I did more or less what you did: I copied a 11.0 install from a machine (32 bits)
to another (64 bit cpu). The new system booted after some convincing, so then I put in the 11.2
biarch DVD (the 9 Gig one) and… it found the other test partitions I had on it, but it completely
refused to find that 11.0 system.
What?
But there is an option to manually enter the partition name (try it). It did some thinking, then it
said that I was trying to upgrade from 11.0 to 11.2, and 32 to 64 bits. That the upgrade could go
ahead, but that I was warned (I forget the wording).
(I didn’t upgrade that one. I wanted advice, then I had no time, so it is still pending. I’m using
instead one of the test partitions with 11.2, which is the one I’m using to type this).
Later I discovered that during grub boot sequence there was an option menu to change the
architecture - I tried it to switch to 32 bits, and then the upgrade sequence succeeded finding fstab.
So… please double check that you are not using the biarch dvd (it defaults to 64 bits if the cpu
supports it), or that you are not using the 64 bit ISO.
Check it again, don’t trust your memory 
That’s my guess for now - I can’t do else, I’m out of ideas.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Elessar))
On 2010-08-31 21:36, xmarko wrote:
> sure, lateron, after a successful update, I need to take care of both
> kernels (current and new one) to be present in /boot, this means to
> restore the old one (usually deleted by update) from a backup.
It is preferable to have two different /boot and grubs. Less danger.
You can, for example, two primary partitions with / or /boot of each system, and simply mark one or
the other as bootable in the partition table.
Or have one grub in the MBR, and this one loads the second grub (of the second system), which is
installed in the root or boot directory.
The thing is, don’t mix two kernels in the same /boot, it is likely to have problems (human or
machine). Let each install have its own /boot, and let it handle that directory completely as it
likes (as it is configured to do automatically, I mean, with as little intervention from you).
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Elessar))
SOLVED !
maybe you do not believe this, at least for me it is hard to:
there was one leading space character before the root partition entry in the fstab.
/dev/disk/by-id/scsi-SATA_ST3750640NS_3QD0YLFC-part5 / ext4 defaults 1 2
^
|
removing this, my sda5 will be listed as update choice, and update seems to work now …
( i found out from comparing with another system, where the update was sucessfull, it was the only difference.)
I consider this a major bug in the installer script.
Maybe someone wants to (is able to) fix that for future releases …
Anyway, thanks to all for your postings and your help !
Marko.
On 2010-08-31 23:36, xmarko wrote:
>
> SOLVED !
> maybe you do not believe this, at least for me it is hard to:
> there was one leading space character before the root partition entry
> in the fstab.
> /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-SATA_ST3750640NS_3QD0YLFC-part5 /
> ext4 defaults 1 2
> ^
> |
> removing this, my sda5 will be listed as update choice, and update
> seems to work now …
Wow. 
> ( i found out from comparing with another system, where the update was
> sucessfull, it was the only difference.)
>
> I consider this a major bug in the installer script.
> Maybe someone wants to (is able to) fix that for future releases …
Please report it yourself in Bugzilla
> Anyway, thanks to all for your postings and your help !
Welcome!
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Elessar))
On 2010-08-31 22:36, xmarko wrote:
>
> which symlinks ?
> there are no symlinks.
Yes, there are 
Elessar:~ # l /boot
total 17916
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 1024 May 7 02:44 ./
drwxr-xr-x 25 root root 616 Aug 31 13:22 …/
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1 Feb 28 2010 boot -> ./
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 28 May 7 02:20 initrd -> initrd-2.6.31.12-0.2-desktop
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 May 7 02:20 vmlinuz -> vmlinuz-2.6.31.12-0.2-desktop
If you mean that you haven’t used links in entries in menu.lst, well…
You still have the problem of kernel updates. Each update will create symlinks and update “its” menu.lst
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Elessar))
I wouldn’t report it as a bug since leading blanks and blank lines are normally not allowed in /etc/fstab.
On 2010-09-01 02:36, please try again wrote:
> I wouldn’t report it as a bug since leading blanks and blank lines are
> normally not allowed in /etc/fstab.
Mount was accepting it and booting without protest.
It is either a bug in mount (because of accepting it) or a bug in the install script (because of not
accepting it).
In any case, they can consider whether to add testing for such conditions, or not, or simply report
broken fstabs to the user (that line would neither be a comment nor a valid entry).
IMO, the installer should report that it found an invalid fstab.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” GM (Elessar))
I’ve seen a lot of warnings on some systems at boot time, complaining about such syntax errors in /etc/fstab. It was either Linux or BSD … or both. Removing the blank lines or writing an ‘#’ at the beginning of blank lines solved the issue. However they weren’t fatal errors.
In any case, they can consider whether to add testing for such conditions, or not, or simply report broken fstabs to the user (that line would neither be a comment nor a valid entry).
IMO, the installer should report that it found an invalid fstab.
Yes, I agree.
Actually I wanted to say : "it’s not a bug, but almost … " but after pondering a while and asking my wife if I should better write “almost” or “practically”, I just gave up: my own laziness in english writing.
But you’re right, the installer is beeing kinda picky.
xmarko wrote:
> SOLVED !
> maybe you do not believe this, at least for me it is hard to:
> there was one leading space character before the root partition entry
> in the fstab.
> /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-SATA_ST3750640NS_3QD0YLFC-part5 /
> ext4 defaults 1 2
> ^
> |
notice: non-real-hacker trying to think
we all (i think) agree that to Linux everything looks like a file…
and, all of the following might LOOK to (the human eye, when embeded
in a string) to be the same file names, but they are not:
hello_world <NOTE 'hidden' trailing space
hello_world<NOTE 'hidden' leading space
hello_world<NOTE no 'hidden' spaces
therefore, it should not be surprising that this might work as a path
“/” while this might not " /"
cu around
DenverD
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD [posted via NNTP w/openSUSE 10.3]
DenverD wrote:
>
> hello_world <NOTE 'hidden' trailing space
> hello_world<NOTE 'hidden' leading space
> hello_world<NOTE no 'hidden' spaces
>
i see i missed one character in the above, and ruined my example, try
this (in the web side):
hello_world <NOTE 'hidden' trailing space
hello_world<NOTE 'hidden' leading space
hello_world<NOTE no 'hidden' spaces
–
DenverD
CAVEAT: http://is.gd/bpoMD [posted via NNTP w/openSUSE 10.3]