Prev: Grub, MBR's on several hard drives?
Next: STORAGE USB
From: Virgo Pärna on 22 Jul 2010 06:00
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:42:39 +0200, Florian Kulzer <florian.kulzer+debian(a)icfo.es> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 15:53:36 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>
>> /dev/hda1 /temp ext2 rw,user,auto 0 2
>> /dev/sdc /media/fuze vfat rw,user,noauto 0 0
>> /dev/sg1 /usbdrive vfat rw,user,noauto 0 0
>> /dev/sda /media/usb1 vfat rw,user,noauto 0 0
>
> Nothing here to make the postinst script identify /dev/hda1 as a vfat
> partition. (By the way, why do you have "etx2" instead of "ext3" as the
> type?)
>

Could it be something todo with use of libata drivers in newer kernels?.
That installation script tries to be ready for hda -> sda change. What happens,
if /dev/sda line is commented out in fstab? Or even also /dev/sdc line. I know,
it is somewhat stupid idea, but maybe it's worth of trying.

--
Virgo P�rna
virgo.parna(a)mail.ee


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrni4g5df.46l.virgo.parna(a)dragon.gaiasoft.ee
From: Arthur Marsh on 23 Jul 2010 19:50
Thomas H. George wrote, on 23/07/10 01:00:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:42:39PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 15:53:36 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:13:59PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:25:30 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:28:59AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
>>>>>>>>>>> dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
>>>>>>>>>>> partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean. However, the
>>>>>>>>>>> result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
>>>>>>>>>>> Differences: (offset:original/backup)
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Installation of linux-base still fails as described previously and
>>>>> dosfslabel /dev/hda1 still gives the error message posted prevously but
>>>>> e2fsck /dev/hda1 says it is clean.
>>>>
>>>> So we still have to find out why the postinst script runs dosfslabel on
>>>> an ext3 partition. Looking at the script, it seems to assemble a list of
>>>> filesystems and their types by analyzing /etc/fstab. I would therefore
>>>> like to see your output for:
>>>>
>>>> grep -E 'hda1|2428f3c0|vfat|msdos|ntfs' /etc/fstab
>>>>
>>> The output is:
>>>
>>> /dev/hda1 /temp ext2 rw,user,auto 0 2
>>> /dev/sdc /media/fuze vfat rw,user,noauto 0 0
>>> /dev/sg1 /usbdrive vfat rw,user,noauto 0 0
>>> /dev/sda /media/usb1 vfat rw,user,noauto 0 0
>>
>> Nothing here to make the postinst script identify /dev/hda1 as a vfat
>> partition. (By the way, why do you have "etx2" instead of "ext3" as the
>> type?)
>>
>>> I have copied everything on /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda5 on to a backup drive
>>> and am considering a complete reformat of /dev/hda.
>>
>> I would think that it should be enough to wipe out and reconstruct the
>> one problematic partition.
>>
>> You can try one more thing before that. Here is a list of all the
>> configuration files that the postinst script seems to take into account
>> when searching for known block devices (you can run the awk-cut
>> combination yourself to make sure that your version of linux-base uses
>> the same files):
>>
>> $ awk '/my @config_files/,/^$/{if(/path =>.*\//) print $3}' /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst | cut -d\' -f2
>> /etc/fstab
>> /boot/grub/menu.lst
>> /etc/default/grub
>> /etc/lilo.conf
>> /etc/silo.conf
>> /etc/quik.conf
>> /etc/yaboot.conf
>> /etc/elilo.conf
>> /etc/default/extlinux
>> /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-cd.rules
>> /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/resume
>> /etc/uswsusp.conf
>> /etc/crypttab
>> /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
>> /etc/hdparm.conf
>>
>> You can check if one of these files is present on your system and
>> mentions /dev/hda1 as type vfat. If that should turn out to be the case
>> then it might be enough to remove that reference to solve your problem.
>
> Did all this and found nothing.
>
> Then, since I thought the problem might be buried in the mbr, I used
> lilo to write a mbr for my system on /dev/hda, changed BIOS to boot from
> /dev/hda and rebooted. The boot paused in maintenance mode reporting
> problems with /dev/hda1. I ran e2fsck /dev/hda1 which made a number of
> corrections. Following this the system booted normally from the mbr on
> /dev/hda. The problem is now reduced to this, the output of dosfslabel
> is now just:
>
> Logical sector size (65280 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector size.
>
> What to do? parted has an option to set alignment for newly created
> partitions but can create only ext2 partitions. gdisk has options for
> creating all types of partitions but the man page says nothing about
> alignment.
>
> Recommendations?

Have you tried:

xhost +
su
gparted

Remember all the usual precautions about backing up your data before
doing anything potentially destructive with gparted.

On a related subject, I kept getting fsck.vfat error messages with a USB
stick because I had been running an fsck on the entire device (e.g.
/dev/sdd) rather than on just the filesystem (e.g. /dev/sdd1).

Arthur.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pamph7-7v4.ln1(a)ppp121-45-136-118.lns11.adl6.internode.on.net
From: Andrei Popescu on 24 Jul 2010 03:00
On Sb, 24 iul 10, 09:18:04, Arthur Marsh wrote:
>
> xhost +

This is insecure:
http://www.fooishbar.org/blog/tech/x/xhost-plus-2010-06-29-22-42.html

Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
From: Arthur Marsh on 24 Jul 2010 06:30
Andrei Popescu wrote, on 24/07/10 16:29:
> On Sb, 24 iul 10, 09:18:04, Arthur Marsh wrote:
>>
>> xhost +
>
> This is insecure:
> http://www.fooishbar.org/blog/tech/x/xhost-plus-2010-06-29-22-42.html
>
> Regards,
> Andrei

Agreed about the " xhost + " being insecure but it took a few tries to
work out the correct incantation:

$ xhost +SI:localuser:root

The xhost manual page doesn't really say what the "SI" does, nor does it
mention "localuser" only "local".

There are some X basics I'm unfamiliar with /-:.

Arthur.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/nbrqh7-284.ln1(a)ppp121-45-136-118.lns11.adl6.internode.on.net
From: Florian Kulzer on 24 Jul 2010 19:00
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 14:04:16 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
> > > > > > > > > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
> > > > > > > > > > > partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean. However, the
> > > > > > > > > > > result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
> > > > > > > > > > > Differences: (offset:original/backup)

[...]

> I started by using parted to delete hda5 (logical), hda2 (extended) and
> then hda1 (primary). I then used commands of the form
>
> parted -a opt /dev/hda primary 32.3kB 1999MB
>
> to restore the partitions. They still did not end on cylinder
> boundries. Deleted the partitions again and tried -a min. They still
> did not end on cylinder boundries. Deleted the partitions again and
> tried -a cylinder. They still did not end on cylinder boundries.
> Deleted the partitions again, switched to fdisk and specified the
> partition sizes by cylinders. They still do not end on cylinder
> boundries. Switched to gparted and made the partition file types ext3.
>
> Rebooted - no problems. Note: The system booting from /dev/hda. The
> script lilo wrote in the mbr has not been effected by the changes listed
> above.
>
> Ran dosfslabel /dev/hda1. The reponse was: Logical sector size
> is zero. Repeated this for each partition on each of my hard drives
> with the same result.

I see the same for my partitions, except for /dev/hda1 where I get "Seek
to 60011609600:Invalid argument". It should not really matter, in all
all cases an error is returned, so dosfslabel fails. This does not
surprise me for ext3 partitions; I still think it is a mistake that the
postinst script of linux-base runs dosfslabel on the partition.

> Disconnected every usb device attache to my system.
>
> Ran aptitude -f install. The result:

[...]

> 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, <STDIN> line 10.
> dpkg: error processing linux-base (--configure):

[...]

Erase all references to vfat filesystems (see Virgo Pärna's suggestion)
and to removable devices from your /etc/fstab; make sure that "mount"
only lists your built-in hard drives. If the installation of linux-base
still fails after that then it is probably time to file a bug against
the package (after carefully checking out the existing reports).

--
Regards, |
Florian |


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100724223955.GB8025(a)isar.localhost
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Grub, MBR's on several hard drives?
Next: STORAGE USB