On 9 May 2009, at 16:23, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Saturday 09 May 2009 15:13:35 Stroller wrote:
On 9 May 2009, at 13:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
it definitely
_is_ a rule.
Cou
Francesco Talamona wrote:
> On Saturday 09 May 2009, Dale wrote:
>
>> I was talking about with just a plain file system. I read in a
>> install guide somewhere when I was installing ages ago that having
>> /boot on a separate partition, and not always mounted, was a good
>> security practice.
On Saturday 09 May 2009, Dale wrote:
> I was talking about with just a plain file system. I read in a
> install guide somewhere when I was installing ages ago that having
> /boot on a separate partition, and not always mounted, was a good
> security practice. That way no one could alter the kerne
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 09 May 2009 08:15:09 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>
>> I was talking about with just a plain file system. I read in a install
>> guide somewhere when I was installing ages ago that having /boot on a
>> separate partition, and not always mounted, was a good security
>> pra
On Sat, 09 May 2009 08:15:09 -0500, Dale wrote:
> I was talking about with just a plain file system. I read in a install
> guide somewhere when I was installing ages ago that having /boot on a
> separate partition, and not always mounted, was a good security
> practice. That way no one could alt
On Saturday 09 May 2009 15:13:35 Stroller wrote:
> On 9 May 2009, at 13:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
> >>> This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
> >>> it definitely
> >>> _is_ a rule.
> >>
> >> Could you possibly expla
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 14:46:39 schrieb Dale:
>
>
>> Wasn't there a security reason for this setup at one time? If you put
>> /boot on a separate partition, then the only time it needed to be
>> mounted was to update the kernel or edit grub/lilo. That was what I was
>
On 9 May 2009, at 13:41, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
it definitely
_is_ a rule.
Could you possibly explain why, please?
Because it eliminates the need for an initramfs (which I
Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 14:46:39 schrieb Dale:
> Wasn't there a security reason for this setup at one time? If you put
> /boot on a separate partition, then the only time it needed to be
> mounted was to update the kernel or edit grub/lilo. That was what I was
> reading when I installed Gentoo
Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
>
>
>>> This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
>>> it definitely
>>> _is_ a rule.
>>>
>> Could you possibly explain why, please?
>>
>
> Because it eliminates the need for an initram
Am Samstag, 9. Mai 2009 12:20:46 schrieb Stroller:
> > This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_,
> > it definitely
> > _is_ a rule.
>
> Could you possibly explain why, please?
Because it eliminates the need for an initramfs (which I used until a few
weeks ago), even if y
On 8 May 2009, at 21:58, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
Am Freitag, 8. Mai 2009 19:17:28 schrieb Daniel da Veiga:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 14:04, Dirk Heinrichs >
wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 22:53:18 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
Mirrored - no problem. But how else would you boot off a
striped / with
Am Freitag, 8. Mai 2009 23:12:22 schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> But that only applies to you, not always.
Yes, of course it applies to me - always ;)
> I stopped using /boot
> partitions a few years ago and removed my last one earlier this year.
Shame on you :)
Bye...
Dirk
signature.asc
D
On Fri, 8 May 2009 22:58:22 +0200, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > > /boot is _always_ a separate partition, isn't it?
> >
> > AFAIK, that's not a rule. Most people consider it the best option, but
> > its definetly not a rule...
>
> This is Gentoo, so you as the user define the rules. And for _me_
Am Freitag, 8. Mai 2009 19:17:28 schrieb Daniel da Veiga:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 14:04, Dirk Heinrichs
wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 22:53:18 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> >> Mirrored - no problem. But how else would you boot off a striped / with
> >> /boot not on a separate partition?
> >
>
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 14:04, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 22:53:18 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>
>> Mirrored - no problem. But how else would you boot off a striped / with
>> /boot not on a separate partition?
>
> /boot is _always_ a separate partition, isn't it?
>
AFAIK, that's
Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 22:53:18 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> Mirrored - no problem. But how else would you boot off a striped / with
> /boot not on a separate partition?
/boot is _always_ a separate partition, isn't it?
Bye...
Dirk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Thursday 07 May 2009 23:34:17 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2009 23:16:27 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > But I'm not talking about me. Wandering around the company I find it
> > very common for inexperienced admins to install Red Hat on their
> > servers with everything on one file syste
On Thu, 7 May 2009 23:16:27 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> But I'm not talking about me. Wandering around the company I find it
> very common for inexperienced admins to install Red Hat on their
> servers with everything on one file system and both internal drives
> mirrored with Linux raid.
>
> I
On Thursday 07 May 2009 23:00:06 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Donnerstag 07 Mai 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 May 2009 22:46:59 Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 21:37:39 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> > > > There's always exceptions of course - booting off a soft
On Donnerstag 07 Mai 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 07 May 2009 22:46:59 Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 21:37:39 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> > > There's always exceptions of course - booting off a soft-raid volume
> >
> > I doubt that :-)
>
> Mirrored - no problem. But
On Thursday 07 May 2009 22:46:59 Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 21:37:39 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> > There's always exceptions of course - booting off a soft-raid volume
>
> I doubt that :-)
Mirrored - no problem. But how else would you boot off a striped / with /boot
*not* on
Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 21:37:39 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> There's always exceptions of course - booting off a soft-raid volume
I doubt that :-)
Bye...
Dirk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday 07 May 2009 18:48:15 Saphirus Sage wrote:
> I've never managed to successfully boot a gentoo laptop without initrd.
I've never managed to successfully boot a gentoo laptop with initrd.
initrd's are there for the case where the distro builder does not know what
the hardware is beforeh
Am Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009 18:48:15 schrieb Saphirus Sage:
> I've never managed to successfully boot a gentoo laptop without initrd.
Then you're doing something wrong. I boot mine without, even with encrypted /
on logical volume.
Bye...
Dirk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digit
I've never managed to successfully boot a gentoo laptop without initrd.
On May 7, 2009, at 12:37 PM, Dirk Heinrichs
wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 22:41:54 schrieb Masood Ahmed:
maxim wexler writes:
Are you
using an initrd?
No, never used one on a gentoo box before. That's a fedora th
Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 22:41:54 schrieb Masood Ahmed:
> maxim wexler writes:
> >> Are you
> >> using an initrd?
> >
> > No, never used one on a gentoo box before. That's a fedora thing, isn't
> > it?
>
> Nope! Its not distribution specific. It's a kernel feature.
But it's up to the distribution
Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 21:51:55 schrieb maxim wexler:
> Still panics
Sure, because of CONFIG_USB_[EOUW]HCI_HCD=m. If you want to boot from USB,
kernel needs to have a means to access your USB device. Don't know if that
matters, but I would also enable some/all sub-options of USB-Storage.
HTH
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM, maxim wexler wrote:
>
> > # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA is not set
>
> deprecated, possible conflict but I set it anyway
>
> > # CONFIG_SATA_AHCI is not set
>
> doubtful if I need it but set it anyway
>
> > # CONFIG_SATA_PMP is not set
>
> definitely nothing to do with
> # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IDE_SATA is not set
deprecated, possible conflict but I set it anyway
> # CONFIG_SATA_AHCI is not set
doubtful if I need it but set it anyway
> # CONFIG_SATA_PMP is not set
definitely nothing to do with my system, didn't set it.
>
> Not sure, anyway, try it...
>
Still p
maxim wexler writes:
>> Are you
>> using an initrd?
>
> No, never used one on a gentoo box before. That's a fedora thing, isn't it?
Nope! Its not distribution specific. It's a kernel feature.
Regards,
Masood Ahmed
--
Promptness is its own reward, if one lives by the clock instead of the sword.
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 16:51, maxim wexler wrote:
>> Well, it seems your kernel lacks support for the disks. Are
>> you sure
>> you compiled in all the necessary USB, SATA disk support?
>
> Still panics
>
> chrooted, ran make menuconfig, make && make modules_install and copied over
> the kernel t
Am Mittwoch, 6. Mai 2009 19:11:56 schrieb maxim wexler:
> VFS: Cannot opent root device "sda2" or unknown-block(0,0)
> Please append a correct "root=" boot option: here are the available
> partitions:#doesn't say what they are Kernel panic = not syncing:
> VFS: Unable to mount root fs on u
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 14:11, maxim wexler wrote:
>
>> The kernel takes a little time to detect and settle the bus
>> to detect
>> the devices. At least adding "rootwait" and
>> "rootdelay=10" to the
>> kernel line solved my problems.
>
> Tried rootwait by itself and with rootdelay=10 and rootdela
> The kernel takes a little time to detect and settle the bus
> to detect
> the devices. At least adding "rootwait" and
> "rootdelay=10" to the
> kernel line solved my problems.
Tried rootwait by itself and with rootdelay=10 and rootdelay=10 by itself
Well, the triple E still don't boot: eithe
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:03, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2009 10:46:15 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the kernel must wait for the root device to be ready, the root
>> device on EEE is on a USB bus. Add "rootwait" to the kernel line.
>
> Are you sure about that? On my 900, lshw
On Wed, 6 May 2009 10:46:15 -0300, Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> Yeah, the kernel must wait for the root device to be ready, the root
> device on EEE is on a USB bus. Add "rootwait" to the kernel line.
Are you sure about that? On my 900, lshw shows sda and sdb to be ATA
devices. Only sdc, the card slo
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 01:31, maxim wexler wrote:
>
>
>> You gotta use a "delay" (or "wait", can't remember exactly)
>> parameter
>> for the kernel to wait while the disc is recognized, dunno
>> exactly,
>> but 2 to 5 seconds should be enough. I have an EEE 701 and
>
> Well there's a 10 sec 'timeo
On Tue, 5 May 2009 16:23:13 -0700 (PDT), maxim wexler wrote:
> grub.conf:
>
> default 0
> timeout 10
>
> title Gentoo
> root (hd0,0)
> kernel /boot/kernel root=/dev/sda2 # 'kernel /kernel' also works
kernel /kernel is the correct setting when you have a separate /boot, the
other only works beca
> You gotta use a "delay" (or "wait", can't remember exactly)
> parameter
> for the kernel to wait while the disc is recognized, dunno
> exactly,
> but 2 to 5 seconds should be enough. I have an EEE 701 and
Well there's a 10 sec 'timeout' but I can make that infinite by hitting the
arrow key. T
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 20:23, maxim wexler wrote:
>
> Hi group,
>
> My 900A with a fresh gentoo install boots into a panic. Says it doesn't like
> my root=/dev/sda2 option. But that *is* the root partition.
>
> fstab:
>
> /dev/sda1 /boot ext2 noauto,noatime 1 2
> /dev/sda2 /
Hi group,
My 900A with a fresh gentoo install boots into a panic. Says it doesn't like my
root=/dev/sda2 option. But that *is* the root partition.
fstab:
/dev/sda1 /boot ext2noauto,noatime 1 2
/dev/sda2 / ext3noatime0 1
almost exactly like the model in
42 matches
Mail list logo
