> To: lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org > From: TJ Olaes <cont...@olaes.net> > Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:51:59 +0000 (UTC) > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Can't get LFS to boot, > fsck.ext4 no such file or directory while trying to open .... > > akhiezer <lfs65 <at> cruziero.com> writes: > > > Well, (roughly speaking and to paraphrase from old Slackware notes) there > > was > a > > change in the kernel back in ca late 2009 / early 2010, whereby the "old" > > ide > > subsystem was deprecated in favour of the newer libata subsystem, and this > > affected the naming of device nodes for almost all types of disk drives - > whether > > physically or logically IDE or not: basically anything 'hd..' became 'sd..' > > . > > Am not sure how a layer of VM might affect all that. > > > > A few years back I used a machine that had, physically, only IDE drives and > > connectors - no SATA disks or ports at all - to build an LFS from a > > Slackware > > ~12.2 (or <= 13.0) host OS: the host OS used /dev/hda, /dev/hdb, &c; and > > the > new > > LFS used a kernel that wanted the new libata 'sd..' naming system; and I > > _had_ > to > > tell LFS's fstab &c to use 'sd..' naming system, else LFS would boot only > > so > far > > before hitting a kernel panic. > > > > So it's not really a matter of whether the drives are physically or > > (somehow) > > logically IDE: your new LFS might require the 'sd..' naming. > > > > Bingo. That's relevant info that's not mentioned in the LFS book, because > I just renamed all the hda.'s to sda. and I now have a login prompt. > > Following the LFS steps, this hda/sda naming business isn't mentioned. I > assumed hd.. because SliTaz had named them hd.., but it's running on a 2.6 > kernel. It might be worth it to note that in kernel 3.8.x the hard disks > will be referred to as sd..? >
The change happened sometime between kernel 2.6.27.7 (Slackware 12.2, released 20081211) and 2.6.29.6 (Slackware 13.0, released 20090828); a google should get more-precise version if wanted. So (looking at distrowatch page for SliTaz) the next release of SliTaz might be dealing with the same issue. IIRC, I did put a note back to the bookmeisters on the matter, but nada: it may be, if anything, deemed less needed now if it's assumed that more-or-less every host OS will be on a sufficiently late 2.6 or on a 3.x kernel, and without an especially unusual config. > Oh well. Thanks for your help, and the historical tidbit you dropped there > was pretty clutch in informing me what to do next. > You're welcome - no probs. -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
