2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

galen · 2004-01-11 21:37:17

pacman upgraded kernel today to 2.4.24
on reboot
arch dies stone dead
EBDA is big; kernel setup stack overlap LILO second stag

I use /dev/hda1 as boot and root
NO disk or MBR corruptions.

ideas?

[updated]

as Hapy said below a script to run lilo is highly recommended and should be included

dp · 2004-01-11 21:53:55

did you run lilo after update (before reboot)?
did it returned some error or warning?
can you boot into system with alternative kernel? (2.6.1? a selfmade?)
how did your lilo.conf look like?

i run 2.4.24 and 2.6.1 without problems

galen · 2004-01-11 23:21:00

no I forgot to run lilo

lilo was running from MBR and hda1 in
vga=1
(non graphics mode)

tried booting from another distro's kernel 2.4.22 but only got
a screen flood with
99 99 99 ...

hApy · 2004-01-12 05:53:58

I think that the kernel package should have a install-script that reminds users that they need to run lilo after a kernel upgrade, or else it won't boot.

I can't tell if you've fixed it yet or not galen, but if not, use the ftp-install/recover boot disk and when it asks for options for the kernel enter:

arch root=/dev/discs/disc0/part1

or whatever the path is to your booting HD.

then once it boots up run lilo at the prompt to re-install it.

re-running it lets lilo point to the right place where your new kernel is located.

Hapy.

galen · 2004-01-12 12:22:32

back in business,
booted from the CD

yes a script should be included or else every install upgrade is killed,
that's bad business

sarah31 · 2004-01-12 15:18:43

there is a script that prompts the user to run lilo.

at least there was but if you are a long time user of lilo this should already be common knowledge

galen · 2004-01-12 15:32:59

I have yet to find any notification in logs or the script to upgrade the kernel.

While I don't hesitate to admit my over sight by not running lilo, I like any user should not have to be on guard 24/7 on every upgrade that causes a FATAL crash of the system.
:twisted:

For me I was running the upgrades from a root terminal, and simply selected upgrade all, never expecting OS suicide.

By its nature pacman is suppose to cure upgrades from hell.

sarah31 · 2004-01-12 16:18:39

did you read the installation output?

like debian, gentoo, etc. there are certain packages that are installed that can cause issues if certain things are not done post install. in such cases there are always instructions piped to console/terminal of just what to do. package managers are designed to manage what is installed and what isn't they are not usually designed to detect what packages are being used (ie lilo or grub) or how a package may be configured (ie samba, mysql). as such the only thing that can be done is ensure that important files are not overwritten/replaced.

if you read any forums at all you know such problems always arise in any dependency solving system. it is not usually the fault of the packages or package manager but a failure on the part of the user to read their installation results. trust me i have done it plenty of times in arch, debian, etc. don't ever assume that a package manager will cook as well as clean. most don't .

Arch Linux

#1 2004-01-11 21:37:17

2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

#2 2004-01-11 21:53:55

Re: 2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

#3 2004-01-11 23:21:00

Re: 2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

#4 2004-01-12 05:53:58

Re: 2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

#5 2004-01-12 12:22:32

Re: 2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

#6 2004-01-12 15:18:43

Re: 2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

#7 2004-01-12 15:32:59

Re: 2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

#8 2004-01-12 16:18:39

Re: 2.4.24 killed my arch. [FXx] script requested for future

Board footer