Hi group!
The saga of "If it ain't broke, upgrade!" continues.

[background]
A local kindergarten e-mailed if we can donate two boxen for it's
students. So we gathered some hardware of the 486-p2 variety and did our
good deed. In this junk was 20Gb drive which I gathered as I never had
such "big" one, never needed such for what I do on my box.
[/background]

[Slackware part]
A running install of 9.1 exist(s/ed) on my smaller drive and I decided
to try to transfer it to the "other one".
Beying in Linux for some time I decided to do it "Linux way".
Booted from Slax CD, fdisked the drive, with DOS formatted one partition
and with mc copied the "Windows98SE" install from small to big.
FDISK /MBR and Windows boots from its new home.
Back to work, Slax, mc and the same story with my /(root) and /home
partitions.
Boot from Slack9.1 diskette, "mount root=/dev/<whatever>", rerun lilo
and I have it working.
[/Slackware part]

[misery part]
For reasons unclear I decided to visit the old install residing on the
smaller drive which is connected as slave.
Easy of course, "mount root=/dev/hdb(<whatever>)" it does as it did
countless times during the years.

During booting it stops with "kernel panic, no init found, try to pass
init= to kernel".
Tried few times with the same results, and there is no interval in which
to insert any info during the booting process.
[/misery part]


What is wrong? In future I promiss to do it MS-way by full install from
zero unless some bozo shows me "the way".

Having fun

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:44:11 +0000, Stanislaw Flatto wrote:
> For reasons unclear I decided to visit the old install residing on the
> smaller drive which is connected as slave.
> Easy of course, "mount root=/dev/hdb(<whatever>)" it does as it did
> countless times during the years.
>
> During booting it stops with "kernel panic, no init found, try to pass
> init= to kernel".
> [snip]
> What is wrong? In future I promiss to do it MS-way by full install from
> zero unless some bozo shows me "the way".

For some reason the kernel was unable to mount that as a root
filesystem, or more precisely, it mounted a filesystem which lacks (or
cannot execute) /sbin/init.

Can you mount that filesystem from the other install or from slax and
look around?
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

/dev/rob0 wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:44:11 +0000, Stanislaw Flatto wrote:
>
>
>For some reason the kernel was unable to mount that as a root
>filesystem, or more precisely, it mounted a filesystem which lacks (or
>cannot execute) /sbin/init.
>
>Can you mount that filesystem from the other install or from slax and
>look around?
>
>
YES!
But, mama mia, what am I looking for?

TIA

Stanislaw
Trying to use Slack 9.1 in "stereo".

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:49:12 +0000, Stanislaw Flatto wrote:
>>For some reason the kernel was unable to mount that as a root
>>filesystem, or more precisely, it mounted a filesystem which lacks (or
>>cannot execute) /sbin/init.
>>
>>Can you mount that filesystem from the other install or from slax and
>>look around?
>>
> YES!
> But, mama mia, what am I looking for?

Look for reasons why that kernel might not have mounted that root
filesystem, or why it failed to execute /sbin/init. (Check that
kernel too. Remember, the Slackware 2.6.7 kernel can't do reiserfs
without its initrd crutch.)

I know you're frustrated, but I bet you're overlooking something very
simple and basic. Keep at it, you can solve this.
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

/dev/rob0 wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:49:12 +0000, Stanislaw Flatto wrote:
>

>YES!
>But, mama mia, what am I looking for?
>

>Look for reasons why that kernel might not have mounted that root
>filesystem, or why it failed to execute /sbin/init. (Check that
>kernel too. Remember, the Slackware 2.6.7 kernel can't do reiserfs
>without its initrd crutch.)
>
>
Where, what, why?
I only composed "If it ain't broke, upgrade!" but I still am _using_ the
perfectly functional, for me, 2.4.xx kernel.

>I know you're frustrated, but I bet you're overlooking something very
>simple and basic.
>
Frustrated? You should see the black and blue spots on my forehead from
hitting double brick wall.

> Keep at it, you can solve this.
>
>
So I believed till few moments ago when I changed my religion.
Why, the hell, I *have to have* two copies of the same install, when one
is now writing this letter, exactly like the other did before "upgrade".
But I am not yet reclaiming those partitions, I may try sinning
tomorrow. (Now it stops with "Warning: Cannot open initial console").

And who said that Linux is "serious" OS?

Having fun

Stanislaw

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Stanislaw Flatto dared to utter,
>
>>Look for reasons why that kernel might not have mounted that root
>>filesystem, or why it failed to execute /sbin/init.
>>
> Where, what, why?

Certain things are required to be either built into the kernel, or
loaded as modules from an initrd (initial ram disk) to actually mount
the root filesystem. A non-exclusive list follows:

Filesystem support
Disk device support (IDE, SCSI, etc)
RAID controller support (if any)
Chipset support (in some cases, I think)

> Frustrated? You should see the black and blue spots on my forehead from
> hitting double brick wall.

Ouch. I can tell you from personal experience that will not solve your
Slack problem.

>> Keep at it, you can solve this.

Indeed he can.

> So I believed till few moments ago when I changed my religion.

I hope it was to the Church of the Subgenious. :^)

> Why, the hell, I *have to have* two copies of the same install, when one
> is now writing this letter, exactly like the other did before "upgrade".

Well, if you changed something on one and didn't make the same change
on the other, it's not the exact same; is it? If the hardware is
slightly different, it's not the exact same; is it? There's lots of
things that could be different between them. Most are minor, but it's
quite possible you've got a seriously major difference between them
(hint hint, the 2.6.7 kernel is one such difference).

> But I am not yet reclaiming those partitions, I may try sinning
> tomorrow. (Now it stops with "Warning: Cannot open initial console").

Have you googled for that at all? It strikes me as the kind of error a
lot of people would have gotten. Perhaps you left something out of your
kernel (very likely) like console support?

> And who said that Linux is "serious" OS?

I did.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBMzu2lKR45I6cfKARAtAbAJ9iuOWIrA3vP4m4SWUnnS uBJei+ZwCePP6a
sAoGIUJ3M8HB5dx0ew9qnWc=
=SJ8n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

+Alan Hicks+ wrote:

>>Why, the hell, I *have to have* two copies of the same install, when one
>>is now writing this letter, exactly like the other did before "upgrade".
>>
>>
>
>Well, if you changed something on one and didn't make the same change
>on the other, it's not the exact same; is it? If the hardware is
>slightly different, it's not the exact same; is it? There's lots of
>things that could be different between them. Most are minor, but it's
>quite possible you've got a seriously major difference between them
>(hint hint, the 2.6.7 kernel is one such difference).
>
>
>>And who said that Linux is "serious" OS?
>>
>>
>
>I did.
>
>
>

OK so lets get "serious". Now, that the Greek show is finished.
The "funny" part that tickles me till I go loco is:
NO differences, another hard drive with the "resident" working and
configured distribution copied to it.
The "copied" OS performs perfectly as the old one did. (I am using it now)
The old one cannot be brought into working state, no change in hardware,
kernel or other external components.
Will give it another trial and then those partitions became storage space.
But it was interesting time, fighting with unknown and missunderstood
behaviour of our "reliable" distribution.

"Que sera, sera".

See ya on group.

Stanislaw

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.netWORK> wrote in message news:<41333bf9_3@newsfeed.slurp.net>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.os.linux.slackware, Stanislaw Flatto dared to utter,
> >
> >>Look for reasons why that kernel might not have mounted that root
> >>filesystem, or why it failed to execute /sbin/init.
> >>
> > Where, what, why?
>
> > Why, the hell, I *have to have* two copies of the same install, when one
> > is now writing this letter, exactly like the other did before "upgrade".
>
> Well, if you changed something on one and didn't make the same change
> on the other, it's not the exact same; is it? If the hardware is
> slightly different, it's not the exact same; is it? There's lots of
> things that could be different between them. Most are minor, but it's
> quite possible you've got a seriously major difference between them
> (hint hint, the 2.6.7 kernel is one such difference).

I can solve this one telepathically. :-)

the old lilo.conf, and the old kernel are expecting to get booted from
the previous MBR. So lilo.conf is telling the kernel to boot from one
place, and the MBR is telling the kernel to boot from the other. The
sector map doesn't match the config in either case, and it crashes.

I like your first idea - keep the working one, and take the other down
to bare metal. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:

>I can solve this one telepathically. :-)
>
>
Oh, no!
With my mind numbed by this experience cannot afford telephaty :'(

>the old lilo.conf, and the old kernel are expecting to get booted from
>the previous MBR. So lilo.conf is telling the kernel to boot from one
>place, and the MBR is telling the kernel to boot from the other. The
>sector map doesn't match the config in either case, and it crashes.
>
>
Who is lilo and his sidekick (I loved this Borland programm in my DOS
days) lilo.conf, when doing "mount root=/dev/hdXY" from diskette?

>I like your first idea - keep the working one, and take the other down
>to bare metal. ;-)
>
>
Agreed 101%.

>Cheers!
>Rich
>
>
Stanislaw.

Stanislaw Flatto wrote:

> Rich Grise wrote:
>
>>I can solve this one telepathically. :-)
>>
>>
> Oh, no!
> With my mind numbed by this experience cannot afford telephaty :'(
>
>>the old lilo.conf, and the old kernel are expecting to get booted from
>>the previous MBR. So lilo.conf is telling the kernel to boot from one
>>place, and the MBR is telling the kernel to boot from the other. The
>>sector map doesn't match the config in either case, and it crashes.
>>
>>
> Who is lilo and his sidekick (I loved this Borland programm in my DOS
> days) lilo.conf, when doing "mount root=/dev/hdXY" from diskette?
>
Oh. Well, then, just boot the one that works. ;-) Did you know you can
put "mount root=/dev/hdXY vga=ext" and get a 50-line console?

Cheers!
Rich

>>I like your first idea - keep the working one, and take the other down
>>to bare metal. ;-)
>>
>>
> Agreed 101%.
>
>>Cheers!
>>Rich
>>
>>
> Stanislaw.