On Tuesday 04 August 2009, you wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
> > This oneliner change would fix the issue as well:
> > +++ b/packages/base-installer/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
> > @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ install_base_system () {
> > # so make a backup to be restored later
> >
Frans Pop wrote:
This oneliner change would fix the issue as well:
+++ b/packages/base-installer/debian/bootstrap-base.postinst
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ install_base_system () {
# so make a backup to be restored later
copied_fstab=true
cp /target/etc/fsta
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> reassign 539744 base-installer
Bug #539744 [debian-installer] chroot to lenny /target in debootstrap segfaults
Bug #532785 [debian-installer] chroot to lenny /target in debootstrap segfaults
Bug reassigned from package 'debian-installer' to 'base-
reassign 539744 base-installer
tags 539744 pending
thanks
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> One, IMO fairly logical, solution to this could be to not let partman
> create /etc/fstab *in* /target, but instead create it somewhere in the
> the D-I environment and then let a base-installer
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> And yes, replacing the UUIDs in the fstab by regular devices gets rid
> of the segfault. Still weird that an empty mtab avoids it though.
>
> Colin, any thoughts (given that you implemented the switch to UUID)?
The problem is essentially that we have a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # Reassigning to debian-installer as the cause of the problem is not
> # in debootstrap; raising severity to RC as it breaks installing stable
> reassign 539744 debian-installer
Bug #539744 [debootstrap] chroot to lenny /target in debootstrap segf
On Tuesday 04 August 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> The two traces are very similar indeed. What I could spot:
> * /target vs. /target/ on the command line.
That's just from auto-completion. Not relevant.
> * The new chroot binary reads 4 bytes from urandom and does an extra
>mprotect before
Frans Pop writes:
> On Monday 03 August 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
>
>> I can't see anything strange in it now, but it would be interesting to
>> know whether it depends on the contents of /target/etc/mtab (what if
>> you delete it before the mount?). Having an strace of a second
>> (successful)
On Monday 03 August 2009, Ferenc Wagner wrote:
> I can't see anything strange in it now, but it would be interesting to
> know whether it depends on the contents of /target/etc/mtab (what if
> you delete it before the mount?). Having an strace of a second
> (successful) run might also provide a cl
Frans Pop writes:
> And if I choose to install stable I *can* reproduce the issue, both on
> s390 and i386. And I can confirm that it is a segfault in mount when
> mounting /proc (this is after extracting "required" packages).
>
> But it is indeed very strange that only the first mount attempt
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 539744 chroot to lenny /target in debootstrap segfaults
Bug #539744 [debootstrap] installation-reports
Bug #532785 [debootstrap] Installation Report
Changed Bug title to 'chroot to lenny /target in debootstrap segfaults' from
'installatio
retitle 539744 chroot to lenny /target in debootstrap segfaults
severity 539744 important
thanks
On Monday 03 August 2009, Winfried Muench wrote:
> for the first installation i used the stable staging from the debian
> miror. When I use the testing stage then the "mount /proc error" will
> not ap
12 matches
Mail list logo
