0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

hrose · 2003-07-10 04:24:45

I saw the 0.5 beta ISO available for download, so I gave it a shot. I tried the CD-Rom installation on a standard Dell desktop. Everything appeared to go well until after the packages installed. Then it failed to install the kernel. It looked like the CD had been unmounted after the packages installed, so I manually mounted it and installed the kernel, then completed the installation. Lilo failed to install on the boot partition. I guess I jumped the gun a little with 0.5.

apeiro · 2003-07-10 06:45:00

Yea, you snuck in there before we were ready for you.

The updated iso should work just fine for you. Sorry you wasted a download.

Gyroplast · 2003-07-10 08:55:09

Grrr, I wasted ten bucks for an 3 hour download and a double espresso in an internet cafe for this download. Curse you!

Is that the only thing fixed in the updated ISO? If it is I can merely assume that it works well when documenting the process and not waste the money and time again.

hrose · 2003-07-10 13:46:20

Thanks for the quick update.
Having discovered Arch a couple of months ago, I have really come to like it a lot. Kudos to all the people making it happen, and keeping it alive. So far I have replaced both Gentoo and Redhat installations with Arch, and never regretted it for an instant.
IMHO the only weakness is with the installation. The setup script works (usually), and obviously has taken a lot of time and effort, which I appreciate. But it's prone to error, and requires more technical knowledge than some other distributions. Doesn't bother me, but may be enough to deter others.
A recurring problem with the Arch installs is the failure of Lilo to properly write the MBR, resulting in the infamous '40' displays when you try to boot. I will download the ISO again and try various installations on a couple of different machines. If I still have problems with this, I may tackle the setup script myself.

Hrose

apeiro · 2003-07-10 22:42:18

I've found that the L40 errors are fixed with the 'lba32' line in lilo.conf. It's in the default lilo.conf now, but wasn't before.

Gyroplast · 2003-07-11 09:01:42

And if lba32 alone doesnt help, you should try telling LILO more about the BIOS mapping of the boot drive with the disk anb bios options, ie.

boot=/dev/discs/disc0/disc
disk=/dev/discs/disc0/disc bios=0x80
[...]

I needed that a few times to get it to correctly map a SCSI boot drive and even for some old IDE drives.

Yes, this is included in the docs now.

Greets,
Dennis

hrose · 2003-07-11 13:31:36

The bios option seems to have fixed it.
lba32 had no effect either way.

Gyroplast · 2003-07-11 13:39:42

Heh, I'm so totally sick of LILO and the installer by now.. I've installed 0.4 and 0.5 like.. what.. a flooglepopillion times or something, with all kinds of weird SCSI and IDE mixtures to find out where potential problems lie that need to be written down somewhere. And all I could really write down was "Wow, that's too complex, you're on your own!". Somehow frustrating.

Greets,
Dennis

apeiro · 2003-07-11 15:59:09

FYI, 0.5 will have support for both grub and lilo, with grub now being default.

jlvsimoes · 2003-07-12 00:27:12

hum grub default ? ho well guess im using the 0.4 iso forever

hApy · 2003-07-13 23:48:10

but it supports both!!! (well it sounds like it) lol

Hapy.

galen · 2003-07-14 11:35:35

downloaded, checked iso, burnt, checked CD. all ok
attempted an install.
pacman does not install anything, that means no bash, no make = no kernel compile.
dead in the water here.
read all arch docs online.
any ideas?

PS I swear by grub and swear at lilo

apeiro · 2003-07-15 16:58:27

Does this problem occur for anyone else with 0.5beta3?

galen: Can you give me any more details? Did the package selection portion work fine? What does the pacman log say after the failed install?

apeiro · 2003-07-15 17:02:13

Any hApy's right. Both bootloaders are supported in 0.5, and the lilo L40 errors seem to be fixed in 22.5.6.1.

So everyone's happy, right? Riiiiiggghhht?

galen · 2003-07-15 22:39:43

0.5b3

/etc/pacman.conf does not exist

Package selection screen is fine, can select and unselect.
Mounts, defines and builds filesystems just fine.

apeiro · 2003-07-16 19:15:03

Thanks, galen. With supa's help I was able to reproduce the problem. 0.5beta4 is ready with the fix.

Hopefully this will be the last beta release.

galen · 2003-07-23 11:34:23

thank you,

high speed access coming today! Hope to be in the 0.5 ranks soon and go Nova instead of Postal. hehe

Arch Linux

#1 2003-07-10 04:24:45

0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#2 2003-07-10 06:45:00

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#3 2003-07-10 08:55:09

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#4 2003-07-10 13:46:20

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#5 2003-07-10 22:42:18

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#6 2003-07-11 09:01:42

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#7 2003-07-11 13:31:36

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#8 2003-07-11 13:39:42

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#9 2003-07-11 15:59:09

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#10 2003-07-12 00:27:12

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#11 2003-07-13 23:48:10

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#12 2003-07-14 11:35:35

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#13 2003-07-15 16:58:27

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#14 2003-07-15 17:02:13

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#15 2003-07-15 22:39:43

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#16 2003-07-16 19:15:03

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

#17 2003-07-23 11:34:23

Re: 0.5 Beta fails to install kernel

Board footer