|
|
|
|
I'm attempting a net based install using debian-40r0-i386-netinst iso. I
have made several attempts and each time a failure occurs installing the
base system. Usually I get a message
about /usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/etch missing. Navigating to the above
directory confirms that etch is indeed not there.
The frustrating bit is that I had a bare-bones system up on the exact same
machine with the exact same CD a few days ago. I decided to do a reinstall
in order to make partition changes and build a more functional system.
Any suggestions welcome.
Thanks
| |
| sk8r-365 2007-05-27, 1:14 am |
| sj said:
>
> I'm attempting a net based install using debian-40r0-i386-netinst iso. I
> have made several attempts and each time a failure occurs installing the
> base system. Usually I get a message
> about /usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/etch missing. Navigating to the above
> directory confirms that etch is indeed not there.
>
> The frustrating bit is that I had a bare-bones system up on the exact same
> machine with the exact same CD a few days ago. I decided to do a reinstall
> in order to make partition changes and build a more functional system.
>
So you've made partition changes and a few days ago things were OK
before re-doing an install.
Look at the partition sizes, file system types chosen, mount points applied
and if the proper partition has a bootable flag.
--
sk8r-365
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
| |
|
| sk8r-365 wrote:
> sj said:
>
> So you've made partition changes and a few days ago things were OK
> before re-doing an install.
> Look at the partition sizes, file system types chosen, mount points
> applied and if the proper partition has a bootable flag.
>
>
Thanks for the responce.
I double checked and don't believe the partitions are at fault. For the
record there are three drives partitioned as follows:
hda 8.5 G dedicated to / boot flag on
hdc 0.5 G /swap
13 G /home
hdd 30 G /archive
With exception to /swap all partitions are formated as ext3 file systems.
After drives are formated I get the same Debootstrap error
"No such script: /usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/etch"
As an experiment I tried automatic partitioning of hda selecting "all files
in one partition" with hdc and hdd physically removed. Again the install
dies at the same place.
| |
| sk8r-365 2007-05-27, 1:12 pm |
| sj said:
>
> Thanks for the responce.
>
> I double checked and don't believe the partitions are at fault. For the
> record there are three drives partitioned as follows:
>
> hda 8.5 G dedicated to / boot flag on
> hdc 0.5 G /swap
> 13 G /home
> hdd 30 G /archive
>
> With exception to /swap all partitions are formated as ext3 file systems.
> After drives are formated I get the same Debootstrap error
> "No such script: /usr/lib/debootstrap/scripts/etch"
>
> As an experiment I tried automatic partitioning of hda selecting "all files
> in one partition" with hdc and hdd physically removed. Again the install
> dies at the same place.
How does the "check CD" option come out?
I may be way off base here, but I made a /boot with a boot flag. I
dunno if Debian is cool with a / only with all the boot data there
and / being bootable.
Here's my lay out should it be helpful:
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 140 1124518+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 141 331 1534207+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda3 332 33820 269000392+ 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 33821 38913 40909522+ 83 Linux
sda1 = /boot
sda2 = swap
sda3 = /
sda4 = /home
--
sk8r-365
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
| |
|
| sk8r-365 wrote:
> How does the "check CD" option come out?
>
> I may be way off base here, but I made a /boot with a boot flag. I
> dunno if Debian is cool with a / only with all the boot data there
> and / being bootable.
>
The CD check is fine. I have also tried separate /boot partition with the
same results. Again I don't think its a partitioning problem but rather a
missing file. Either it is failing to pull down from the Mirror (I have
tried a few different ones) or it is not on the physical media.
I have found something interesting however. After checking validity of CD I
noticed the disk name is 'CD Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r2 "Sarge" - Official
i386 Binary-1 ...' Why is a "Sarge" disk attempting to install "Etch" ?
My experience is mostly Fedora, not Debian, I'm not at all familiar with the
various Debian releases.
| |
| sk8r-365 2007-05-27, 1:12 pm |
| sj said:
<snip>
>
> I have found something interesting however. After checking validity of CD I
> noticed the disk name is 'CD Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r2 "Sarge" - Official
> i386 Binary-1 ...' Why is a "Sarge" disk attempting to install "Etch" ?
Well, ain't that interesting? I'd have to think you need to get
another source and make a new disk. I did the net install -
having cable - and it went beautifully. I got mine at
http://www.debian.org/distrib/netinst
> My experience is mostly Fedora, not Debian, I'm not at all familiar with the
> various Debian releases.
I think once you get Debian installed, you'll learn to love the
package management and shear elegance of overall system design
.... you'll be *hooked* !
--
sk8r-365
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
| |
|
| Found the problem. It had nothing to do with partitions and everything to
do with me. I burned a new install disk the other night, hastily labeled
it and slipped it in my disk folder. At the same time I tossed out an old
Debian install disk I never used from a few months ago. What I didn't
realize is that I actually had 2 old disk in the folder and that's the one
I've been using. Still not sure why the old sarge disk is looking for
etch....
I'm currently installing with the new disk and the differences were obvious
immediately. So far things look good. Goes to show why good labling is
important.
Thanks for your assistance
Steven Jones
| |
| sk8r-365 2007-05-27, 7:12 pm |
| sj said:
> Found the problem. It had nothing to do with partitions and everything to
> do with me. I burned a new install disk the other night, hastily labeled
> it and slipped it in my disk folder. At the same time I tossed out an old
> Debian install disk I never used from a few months ago. What I didn't
> realize is that I actually had 2 old disk in the folder and that's the one
> I've been using. Still not sure why the old sarge disk is looking for
> etch....
>
> I'm currently installing with the new disk and the differences were obvious
> immediately. So far things look good. Goes to show why good labling is
> important.
>
<snickers> That's funny in a way. I regret your difficulties but I
can benefit from your story.
Good luck,
--
sk8r-365
http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
| |
| s. keeling 2007-05-28, 1:13 am |
| sj <jones57@swbell.net>:
> sk8r-365 wrote:
>
>
>
> The CD check is fine. I have also tried separate /boot partition with the
> [snip]
> I have found something interesting however. After checking validity of CD I
> noticed the disk name is 'CD Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 r2 "Sarge" - Official
> i386 Binary-1 ...' Why is a "Sarge" disk attempting to install "Etch" ?
Because Etch has gone stable, and /etc/apt/sources.list says "stable",
not "sarge.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Linux Counter #80292
- - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html Please, don't Cc: me.
Spammers! http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling/emails.html
| |
|
| On Mon, 28 May 2007 00:58:35 +0000, s. keeling wrote:
> sj <jones57@swbell.net>:
>
> Because Etch has gone stable, and /etc/apt/sources.list says "stable",
> not "sarge.
>
>
And this is why I think it is a good idea to replace "stable" by "sarge" or
"etch" in /etc/apt/sources.list
carex
|
|
|
|