Re: UUID in fstab? - Gave Up
On Saturday 19 June 2010 12:57:22 Thomas H. George wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:15:48PM -0400, Thomas H. George wrote: > ... > > I deleted the vfat partition and created a new ext2 partition in its > place. Ran e2fsck on all of my partitions. The result was clean in > every case. Tried to install linux-base and the installation failed > with the same dosfslabel message. Filed bug report. > This is a long shot, but do you have any USB devices attached? When I went through this linux-base upgrade on my home system, I kept getting an error about something being open (I don't remember the exact message). Running e2fsck on all the partitions didn't help. Then I turned of the USB printer (which has an SDRAM card reader), and the upgrade worked. Certainly remove any USB memory sticks. -Chris | Christopher Judd, Ph. D. | | Research Scientist III | | NYS Dept. of Health j...@wadsworth.org | | Wadsworth Center - ESP | | P. O. Box 509518 486-7829 | | Albany, NY 12201-0509 | IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006210906.54443.j...@wadsworth.org
Re: UUID in fstab? - Gave Up
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:15:48PM -0400, Thomas H. George wrote: > I edited fstab and replaced /dev/sda1 with UUID=507caf8f-f9cd... (i.e. > an hell of a long string I obtained from blkid /dev/sda1) leaving the > rest of the line unchanged as /bkups ext3 rw,user,noauto 0 2 > > Next I rebooted the system, mounted /bkups (no problem) and entered the > command df -h. The ususal list of partitions were listed and /bkups > still appeared as the mount point for /dev/sda1. > > I take it that everything is working ok and if I were to reconnect the > sata drives in a different order the designation /dev/sda1 might change > to something else but mounting /bkups would always access the same > partition? > > I raise this question because I am having trouble installing linux-base > and linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64. The installation of linux-base asked to > change fstab entries to UUID identifiers and I told it to do so. Later > in the process the installion failed with the message: > > > Writing extended state information... > Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-15) ... > Logical sector size (15624 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector > size. > dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059, > line 10. > dpkg: error processing linux-base (--configure): > subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 9 > dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64: > linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 depends on linux-base (>= 2.6.32-15); however: > Package linux-base is not configured yet. > dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 (--configure): > dependency problems - leaving unconfigured > Errors were encountered while processing: > linux-base > linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 > > and, as the installation failed, fstab was unchanged. Since the > dosfslabel failed I thought to change the fstab file to use UUID's > before trying to reinstall linux-base. > > Note: I have run dosfsck on the one vfat partition and fskck on the ext3 > partitions and the checks found no errors on any of the partitions. > > I would appreciate any comments or suggestions regarding this problem I deleted the vfat partition and created a new ext2 partition in its place. Ran e2fsck on all of my partitions. The result was clean in every case. Tried to install linux-base and the installation failed with the same dosfslabel message. Filed bug report. My problems actually started a couple of days ago when I ran a dist-upgrade. In addition to the failure to install linux-base something in the upgrade locked the resolution of X windows at 640x480. The internet became almost unuseable as only a fraction of the window fit in the display. Some months ago we were told xorg.conf was no longer needed. Fortunately I had saved a copy so I put an old version of xorg.conf in /etc/X11. Result: display is back to high resolution, better in fact than it was without xorg.conf before the dist-upgrade forced the display resolution to 640x480. Conclusion: stick with linux-image-2.6.32-3-amd64 until problems goes away. > > Tom > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100618171548.ga2...@tomgeorge.info > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100619165722.ga3...@tomgeorge.info
