On Monday 21 March 2005 04:06, Zev Benjamin wrote: > Hi, > I've been wrestling with getting UML to run under an installer > (Linux/Athena), and I've run into some ubd naming issues. The installer > looks at /proc/partitions to ensure that you've entered a valid > partition name. Under a 2.6.10 UML, that file shows devices with names > like ubda and ubdb1. Under a 2.4.27 UML, that file shows devices with > names like ubd/disc0/disk and ubd/disc1/part1. This is a no-DevFS vs. DevFS difference, or at least it should be. > The problem is that I'm > trying to do the install under 2.6.10 (afs drivers don't seem to work > under 2.4) and /dev only has devices that look like /dev/ubd/0 > (/dev/ubd/disc0, etc.). If 2.6 UML uses the non-devfs names in /proc/partitions, then it might be a bug (but probably due to general issues and not to UML). This is the only possible bug I see in your report, and if verified is a real one.
The /dev normal entries (i.e. with non-DevFS naming) should be created if running devfsd. > Without devfs, there are only /dev/ubdX (X an > integer). In other words, /dev/ubd[abc,etc] don't exist. This only depends on the admin setup, i.e. the admin or the installer manually creates those nodes. > Do I have to > make symlinks, is this a bug in uml, or is this an ongoing naming > migration issue? Can someone tell me what's going on with ubd naming? > Thank you very much. -- Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade Linux registered user n. 292729 http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: 2005 Windows Mobile Application Contest Submit applications for Windows Mobile(tm)-based Pocket PCs or Smartphones for the chance to win $25,000 and application distribution. Enter today at http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6882&alloc_id=15148&op=click _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-user mailing list User-mode-linux-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-user
