[Tfug] Debian unable to mount root fs after an update/upgrade
Glen Pfeiffer
glen at thepfeiffers.net
Wed Jan 24 23:57:05 MST 2007
First, the good news. With everyones help I have fixed the
problem. But I didn't learn much from it yet, so if you don't
mind can you try answering a couple follow-up questions? First,
let me show you the results of your queries.
>
> What does your /etc/fstab look like?
# <file system> <mount point> <type> <options> <dump> <pass>
proc /proc proc defaults 0 0
/dev/hda1 / ext3 defaults,errors=remount-ro 0 1
/dev/hda6 /home ext3 defaults 0 2
/dev/hda5 none swap sw 0 0
/dev/hdc /media/cdrom0 udf,iso9660 user,noauto 0 0
> what about a dpkg -l lilo and a dpkg -L lilo
root at ubuntu:/# dpkg -l lilo
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err:
uppercase=bad)
||/ Name Version Description
+++-==============-==============-============================================
rc lilo 22.6.1-7.1 LInux LOader - The Classic OS loader can
root at ubuntu:/# dpkg -L lilo
Package `lilo' does not contain any files (!)
As a result of that, I decided to install lilo. So I did 'apt-get
install lilo', or maybe I used aptitude, I can't really remember.
Once that finished I ran lilo, and rebooted. The system booted
fine. I have since ran aptitude upgrade again, and noticed that
many packages were not upgraded last time...odd.
I just remembered some extra information about how I executed the
original upgrade, that might be important. I noticed that when I
used aptitude from the CL with the '--with-recommends' flag, it
still reported that the recommended packages would not be
installed. So I tried out the gui version, and set the option to
'Install recommended packages automatically.' Then I ran an
upgrade.
Now on to my questions:
1) Why did running lilo fix the problem?
2) Do you have enough information to make a guess as to what went
wrong? Do you think there was anything I could have done
differently to prevent this problem?
Thanks!
--
Glen
More information about the tfug
mailing list