Tobias Gasser wrote:
> what is NOT what i expect
>
> 1) there is no load.cfg, but maybe that's ok
> 2) the prefix is WRONG, it should be either "/boot" or "(hd0,msdos1)"
>
> i went back to line 642 an got
> drive: (hostdisk//dev/sda,msdos1)
> and after the sed
> partition: ,msdos1
> drive: hostdis
Am 16.11.2012 12:06, schrieb Tobias Gasser:
> i now run "grub-install /dev/sda" with my inserted line 717.
> i'll be back in either 2 minutes after sucessful reboot, or 15 minutes
> id i have to use the live-cd to reinstall grub...
still the same. i just get the grub-rescue-console.
GRUB loading.
> You should have /boot/grub/i386-pc/core.img.
yes. it's size is 26433
> grub-install is a script. Lets try to look at that to see if we can
> figure it out. Adding a few echo commands can confirm some of the
> settings. You can also try 'grub-install --verbose /dev/sda'. You may
> want to a
> You should have /boot/grub/i386-pc/core.img.
this file exists.
> First, check that /usr/sbin/grub-install and
> /usr/share/grub/grub-mkconfig_lib exist. I suspect that is OK.
yes.
> Reading through grub-install, at line 336. we should have:
[...]
> Hopefully some of the above will help you
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> Am 14.11.2012 00:26, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
> bash-4.2# fdisk -l
>
> Disk /dev/sda: 300.1 GB, 300069052416 bytes, 586072368 sectors
> Units = Sektoren of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 b
Am 14.11.2012 00:26, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
>
> I don't know what is going on. How is the disk partitioned?
>
> fdisk -l /dev/sda
bash-4.2# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/sda: 300.1 GB, 300069052416 bytes, 586072368 sectors
Units = Sektoren of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes /
On Nov 14, 2012, at 4:52 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 14:18 -0500, alex lupu wrote:
>> 2. In general, if grub 0.97 could be used here, does it have
>> limitations in
>> other complicated configurations, present and in the foreseeable
>> future?
>
> If I remember correctly, g
On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 14:18 -0500, alex lupu wrote:
> 2. In general, if grub 0.97 could be used here, does it have limitations in
> other complicated configurations, present and in the foreseeable future?
If I remember correctly, grub1 can't be built on a 64-bit system. That
is, it can boot one ju
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> GRUB loading.
> Welcome to GRUB!
>
> error: disk not found.
> Entering rescue mode...
>
> grub 2.0 says: "error: disk 'hd0,msdos1' not found."
> where as grub 1.99 says: "error: disk not found."
>
> "ls" from the grub-rescue-console is empty
> "ls (hd0,1)" differs a little:
Am 13.11.2012 20:26, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
> OK, so I now understand that both sda2 and sda3 are lfs systems.
sorry for not being clear...
and sda1 is /boot for both systems
> What I suggest doing is
>
> mount -v /dev/sda1$LFS/boot
> mount -v --bind /dev $LFS/dev
as mentionned, that is what
alex lupu wrote:
> Just curious. Hopefully, the answers might help some other curious people
> too.
>
> First, apologies for my limited exposure and knowledge of GRUB 2
> and for the inconvenience.
>
> So far, my grub 0.97 has been adequate (and very simple to use)
> for anything I've thrown at i
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> Am 13.11.2012 18:08, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
>> Tobias Gasser wrote:
>>> Am 13.11.2012 03:20, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
>>>
>>> what i missed in my original message:
>>> /sda1 is ext2
>>> /sda2 and /sda3 are ext3 (first attempt was with ext4, but as grub
>>> didn't work i made backup
Just curious. Hopefully, the answers might help some other curious people too.
First, apologies for my limited exposure and knowledge of GRUB 2
and for the inconvenience.
So far, my grub 0.97 has been adequate (and very simple to use)
for anything I've thrown at it.
OTOH, I may have had only sim
Am 13.11.2012 18:08, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
> Tobias Gasser wrote:
>> Am 13.11.2012 03:20, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
>>
>> what i missed in my original message:
>> /sda1 is ext2
>> /sda2 and /sda3 are ext3 (first attempt was with ext4, but as grub
>> didn't work i made backups, reformatted with ext3 and r
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> Am 13.11.2012 03:20, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
>
> what i missed in my original message:
> /sda1 is ext2
> /sda2 and /sda3 are ext3 (first attempt was with ext4, but as grub
> didn't work i made backups, reformatted with ext3 and restored).
insmod ext2 is supposed to be able to h
Am 13.11.2012 03:20, schrieb Bruce Dubbs:
what i missed in my original message:
/sda1 is ext2
/sda2 and /sda3 are ext3 (first attempt was with ext4, but as grub
didn't work i made backups, reformatted with ext3 and restored).
> If /boot is a separate partition, then the linux lines should look
Tobias Gasser wrote:
> since about 1 year i am using the same harddisk. as the procution system
> is a little outdated now, i wanted to make a 'fresh' disk.
>
> to boot from this disk i had to start an ubuntu livecd and install grub
> from this cd. the systems (i have built both 32bit and 64bit) ca
since about 1 year i am using the same harddisk. as the procution system
is a little outdated now, i wanted to make a 'fresh' disk.
to boot from this disk i had to start an ubuntu livecd and install grub
from this cd. the systems (i have built both 32bit and 64bit) can boot
and run fine.
but i
18 matches
Mail list logo
