Bug 65442
Summary: | installer crashed on cdrom #3 installing lilo | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Linux | Reporter: | Joe Acosta <josepha48> | ||||
Component: | installer | Assignee: | Jeremy Katz <katzj> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Brock Organ <borgan> | ||||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | 7.3 | ||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | 9.0 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2005-09-09 04:13:15 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Joe Acosta
2002-05-24 05:09:52 UTC
Without the python traceback, it is nearly impossible to say what happened here. Could you please attach it? Created attachment 915019 [details]
Comment
(This comment was longer than 65,535 characters and has been moved to an attachment by Red Hat Bugzilla).
Interesting... so we thought you were using LILO when you were using GRUB? Could you attach the lilo.conf, grub.conf, and a dd of your boot block (`dd if=/dev/hda of=file bs=512 count=1` if your boot device is hda)? here is lilo: boot=/dev/hda map=/boot/map install=/boot/boot.b prompt timeout=20 message=/boot/message default=linux linear image=/boot/vmlinuz-current append="init 1" vga=normal label=Maint_init1 read-only root=/dev/hda1 image=/boot/vmlinuz-current append="init 2" vga=0x317 label=NormVGA_init2 read-only root=/dev/hda1 image=/boot/vmlinuz-current append="init 3" vga=normal label=runlevel_3 read-only root=/dev/hda1 image=/boot/vmlinuz-current vga=0x317 label=Custom read-only root=/dev/hda1 image=/boot/vmlinuz-test vga=0x317 label=Test read-only root=/dev/hda1 image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.4.18-3 label=linux initrd=/boot/initrd-2.4.18-3.img read-only root=/dev/hda1 here is grub: default 0 timeout 20 border AA00FF splashimage (hd0,0)/boot/grub/custom_image.xpm.gz #splashimage (hd0,0)/boot/grub/blueimage.xpm.gz #splashimage (hd0,0)/boot/grub/splash.xpm.gz # color is not used with splash image #color white/black black/blue # # title GNU/Linux Main kernel kernel (hd0,0)/boot/vmlinuz-current root=/dev/hda1 ide2=noprobe # title GNU/Linux Main kernel quiet mode kernel (hd0,0)/boot/vmlinuz-current root=/dev/hda1 vga=ask fastboot ide2=noprobe# title GNU/Linux Main kernel vga ask kernel (hd0,0)/boot/vmlinuz-current root=/dev/hda1 vga=ask ide2=noprobe # # title GNU/Linux test kernel kernel (hd0,0)/boot/vmlinuz-test root=/dev/hda1 ide2=noprobe # # title GNU/Linux RH default kernel (hd0,0)/boot/vmlinuz-2.4.7-10 root=/dev/hda1 ide2=noprobe # # title GNU/Linux Main init 3 kernel (hd0,0)/boot/vmlinuz-current root=/dev/hda1 init 3 ide2=noprobe # # title GNU/Linux Main init 2 kernel (hd0,0)/boot/vmlinuz-current root=/dev/hda1 init 2 ide2=noprobe # # title GNU/Linux Main init 1 kernel (hd0,0)/boot/vmlinuz-current root=/dev/hda1 init 1 ide2=noprobe Not sure what the dd of my boot block would do... but here it is .. there is no way to upload a file to bugzill here... kHlbaLILO We misdetected because your grub config doesn't have the magic bit that we look for when anaconda writes out the config file and it still looks like you have lilo installed on the bootblock (grub doesn't always clear those bits). I've added a check so that in the future at least if this happens, lilo will get correctly installed. I think it would be better if you changed the GUI to make it more clear as to what it was 'trying to do'. Rather than just "assuming" that you detected things correctly it would be better to prompt something like: Lilo was detected as your installed boot loader is this correct? then have ( yes / no / not sure ) radio buttons. If they choose yes then you can prompt: 1) reinstall LILO 2) update to grub 3) leave boot sector alone if they select no just move forward or you can prompt to install / update to grub if they select not sure then you can default to whatever bootloader you want. Also if you detect a grub.conf it would be really bad to just ignore it because it does not have the 'anaconda magic bit in it'. This is especially true in an upgrade. As I am sure there are probably others out there that installed grub after they installed 7.2, first testing out grub on a boot floppy then on the live system. My issue was that I assumed that the boot detection thing detected my boot sector correctly and it was not clear to me that it had detected lilo (the message was vague). I also KNOW that I have grub and would be really pissed off if I upgraded my system and suddenly found out that the install changed my boot setup to boot lilo instead of grub. Lastly I read in release notes for 7.2 (I think) that lilo was going the way of the dodo, if this is true then you should only be upgrading to grub. Users in general don't know or care about what a bootloader is, and asking them if we detected it right beyond what it currently does just makes things more confusing in a lot of cases. The screen very clearly says "The installer has detected the %s boot loader" so I don't know how much more clear to make it. The magic bits that aren't required for a stock grub configuration because you don't have to have them to boot, but unfortunately, we have to have it to know where you installed the boot loader. And yes, lilo is on the way out, but there are a couple of cases where people have to / prefer to use lilo still and just replacing their bootloader for them on an ugprade is the wrong thing to do. "just replacing their bootloader for them on an ugprade is the wrong thing to do." Hmm we both agree that replacing <boot loader x (in my case grub)> with <boot loader y (in this case lilo)> on an upgrade is also a bad idea. Yes I do remember seeing lilo there somewhere, however the item that I thought I was selecting was 'upgrade boot loader' thinking that it would upgrade my current boot loader to grub (or a newer version of grub) not a newer version of lilo (and failing at that). Having read the release notes of 7.2 knowing that lilo is going away I was under the impression that it would have been grub. (doh!) This sounds like a grub / lilo issue at this point? I was under the impression that grub would overwrite the lilo boot data which is why I was suprised that it actually said lilo in the installer. I figured that it was just another bug in the install. Is there any OTHER way to detect grub is installed other than the 'magic bits'? Also since it is possible that others have upgraded to grub after an install (which means you could really piss off some people in the future) is there any way to get those magic bits there so that they(I) can prevent this in the future? While it it true that most people dont care about a boot loader it is also true that getting LI when the system boots is a bad things (this is why I dislike lilo and like grub). It is also true that Redhat does have users out there that do know the difference between grub and lilo. Yes, and those users can in theory read what is presented to them, see that it is incorrect and not let it continue. There is no way at all for me to be able to guess between all of the permuatations of master boot records and boot partitions where your boot loader might be installed and there's nothing in the grub config file by default to point it out. So anaconda writes a comment in there (note that we always write a grub config out, even if we install lilo as the bootloader) that it then later looks at the be able to install the boot loader. The comment that we look for is of the form #boot=/dev/hda anywhere within the config file. Then we go spelunking through the boot sector and actually make sure it has a grub signature. If so ==> using grub. If not, check lilo.conf; do similar for the boot sector pointed to there and see if it has a lilo signature. If so ==> using lilo. Unfortunately, installing grub doesn't completely wipe the boot sector like lilo as you can actually install grub to the beginning of a fat partition and the location of the LILO marker is important for FAT partitions to not be erased. And to prevent problems in the future, I double-check now that whichever boot loader is detected is actually selected as part of the upgrade set, so we should always be able to have a valid bootloader config after upgrading. Interesting then. You did not find the magic key cause I had a custom grub.conf, so you never went looking through the boot sector for it. What is the magic key that you search for in lilo that I must have had? boot=/dev/hda ? Or does it fall back on lilo? If that is the case then what happens if I remove the lilo.conf and have no magic key in grub.conf? Does it just fail to detect it or does it fall back on one or the other? Or does it look at the boot sector? Also we are not talking about 'every permutation here' of boot sectors. Noone should expect you to support things that you don't ship. You do ship grub and lilo so proper detection of those is something you should support. If one does lilo -U or lilo -u after installing grub will that just uninstall lilo or will that screw up grub as well? Guess I'll test that. Time tracking values updated I'm on FC 4 now, and RH 7.3 is not longer supported AFAIK, so I'd say close this. I'm changing the status to CURRENTRELEASE, because I haven't had problems since I upgraded to RH9, and none of the FC(1-4) have shown this issue. |