Package: installation-reports Original message at bottom, for reference. This is a followup to an erroneus installation-report I made regarding the netinst cd for etch (installer beta2). --------------------------------------
Update: the problem was that no partition was set as boot partition. The installer set /dev/sda7 bootable. I cleared the flag and didn't think to set /dev/sda2 bootable again. Partition table was NOT corrupt - just nothing marked to boot from. Suggestion - installer should ensure that SOME partition has boot flag set after partitioning step is completed. Something else: extended partitions aren't supposed to be bootable, are they? Yet sda7 was set to boot, and it is extended, not primary. sounds like a bug to me... Thanks Mark mpictor [a.t] yahoo [dot-com] --- Mark Pictor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: installation-reports > > Boot method: netinst CD > Image version: > http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/etch_di_beta2/i386/iso-cd/debian-testing-i386-netinst.iso > Date: July 18 2006 > > Machine: custom built by myself, MSI MS-7025 / K8N Neo2 Platinum, > Nforce3 250Gb chipset > Processor: Athlon64 3200 > Memory: 1GB > Partitions: > NOTE - one of the problems I have is that the partition table > seems > to be corrupted! > NOTE2 - I have windows, Debian Etch AMD64, and I tried to install > Debian Etch x86. The only partition for the x86 install is > /dev/sda7. > > Disk /dev/sda: 300.0 GB, 300069052416 bytes > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 36481 cylinders > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > /dev/sda1 1 5 40131 83 Linux > /dev/sda2 6 12163 97659135 7 HPFS/NTFS > /dev/sda3 12164 36481 195334335 5 Extended > /dev/sda5 12164 24141 96213253+ c W95 FAT32 > (LBA) > /dev/sda6 24142 36299 97659103+ 83 Linux > /dev/sda7 36300 36481 1461883+ 83 Linux > sda1 - /boot for Etch AMD64 > sda2 - C: for WXP SP2 > sda5 - D:, FAT32 so it can be written from WXP and Linux > sda6 - / for Etch AMD64 > sda7 - / for Etch x86 (this is the install I have trouble with) > > Output of lspci and lspci -n: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lspci > 0000:00:00.0 Host bridge: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device 00e1 > (rev a1) > 0000:00:01.0 ISA bridge: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device 00e0 > (rev a2) > 0000:00:01.1 SMBus: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device 00e4 (rev > a1) > 0000:00:02.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device > 00e7 (rev a1) > 0000:00:02.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device > 00e7 (rev a1) > 0000:00:02.2 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device > 00e8 (rev a2) > 0000:00:05.0 Bridge: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device 00df (rev > a2) > 0000:00:06.0 Multimedia audio controller: nVidia Corporation: > Unknown device 00ea (rev a1) > 0000:00:08.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device > 00e5 > (rev a2) > 0000:00:09.0 IDE interface: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device > 00ee > (rev a2) > 0000:00:0b.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device 00e2 > (rev a2) > 0000:00:0e.0 PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation: Unknown device 00ed > (rev a2) > 0000:00:18.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 > NorthBridge > 0000:00:18.1 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 > NorthBridge > 0000:00:18.2 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 > NorthBridge > 0000:00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 > NorthBridge > 0000:01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV34GL > [Quadro FX 500] (rev a1) > 0000:02:0c.0 FireWire (IEEE 1394): VIA Technologies, Inc. IEEE > 1394 > Host Controller (rev 46) > 0000:02:0d.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. > RTL-8169 Gigabit Ethernet (rev 10) > > lspci -n > 0000:00:00.0 0600: 10de:00e1 (rev a1) > 0000:00:01.0 0601: 10de:00e0 (rev a2) > 0000:00:01.1 0c05: 10de:00e4 (rev a1) > 0000:00:02.0 0c03: 10de:00e7 (rev a1) > 0000:00:02.1 0c03: 10de:00e7 (rev a1) > 0000:00:02.2 0c03: 10de:00e8 (rev a2) > 0000:00:05.0 0680: 10de:00df (rev a2) > 0000:00:06.0 0401: 10de:00ea (rev a1) > 0000:00:08.0 0101: 10de:00e5 (rev a2) > 0000:00:09.0 0101: 10de:00ee (rev a2) > 0000:00:0b.0 0604: 10de:00e2 (rev a2) > 0000:00:0e.0 0604: 10de:00ed (rev a2) > 0000:00:18.0 0600: 1022:1100 > 0000:00:18.1 0600: 1022:1101 > 0000:00:18.2 0600: 1022:1102 > 0000:00:18.3 0600: 1022:1103 > 0000:01:00.0 0300: 10de:032b (rev a1) > 0000:02:0c.0 0c00: 1106:3044 (rev 46) > 0000:02:0d.0 0200: 10ec:8169 (rev 10) > > Base System Installation Checklist: > [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try > it > > Initial boot worked: [O ] > Configure network HW: [O ] > Config network: [O ] > Detect CD: [O ] > Load installer modules: [O ] > Detect hard drives: [O ] > Partition hard drives: [E ] > Create file systems: [O ] > Mount partitions: [O ] > Install base system: [O ] > Install boot loader: [E ] > Reboot: [E ] > > Comments/Problems: > I'm not certain exactly where the problem is. Here's what I did > and what happened. > > what I did: > -boot etch beta 2 netinst image, hit enter at boot prompt > -manual partition > -erase existing swap partition, set type ext3, mount at /, > format. > -install > -do NOT install bootloader (already have one, I'll add this > partition) > -complete remaining 1 or 2 steps > -once the computer rebooted, I hit the power button - I had other > things to do > ---------------- > Later > -boot computer, partition table not recognized > -use windows install disk to fix MBR, partition table still > corrupt. > > The computer is set up so that when it boots, it first runs the > windows boot menu, and from there I can choose the "Linux" item > to > run GRUB. I used bootpart, http://winimage.com/bootpart.htm, to > add linux to the windows boot.ini. Could this confuse the > installer?! > > I'm proceding with extreme caution. The partition table is good > enough for both Windows Repair Console and for fdisk/cfdisk, yet > it's not good enough for the BIOS to boot the disk. > > The only thing that should've changed with the partition table is > the type of /dev/sda7 - it went from swap to ext3. I did not > delete or resize the partition. > > I'm installing a 32bit version of Debian because of a program > which > does not work on 64bit machines. It requires hard real-time > (RTAI), which apparently does not work under 64-bit yet. > > Mark > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
