Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#1015172: wiki.debian.org: Sid installation fails - No kernel modules found - Wiki issue
165 views
Skip to first unread message
Piscium
Jul 16, 2022, 10:30:04 PM7/16/22
to
Package: wiki.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: gro...@gmail.com
Dear Maintainer,
I tried to install Sid (on a VirtualBox VM) following the instructions in [1], section "Use the Unstable "mini.iso" image.". I downloaded the specified ISO [2] using the nearest mirror, did the sha256 check, proceeded with all the various options without any error, network configuration also succeeded, then at the step "Download installer components" I got the error "No kernel modules found". The mirror is the default and recommended [3].
Upon investigation with the help of the users mailing list it turns out that the file that the wiki says we should use does not work.
This is what it says in the wiki:
"Download the "mini.iso" for your location and CPU architecture located here: Debian mirrors under debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-*/current/images/netboot/".
The above points to a mini.iso that is one year old and does not work.
The following works (at least in amd64), replacing the word "unstable" with "bullseye". It may also work replacing it with "stable" although I have not tried it.
"Download the "mini.iso" for your location and CPU architecture located here: Debian mirrors under debian/dists/bullseye/main/installer-*/current/images/netboot/".
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
[2] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
[3] deb.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: gro...@gmail.com
Dear Maintainer,
I tried to install Sid (on a VirtualBox VM) following the instructions in [1], section "Use the Unstable "mini.iso" image.". I downloaded the specified ISO [2] using the nearest mirror, did the sha256 check, proceeded with all the various options without any error, network configuration also succeeded, then at the step "Download installer components" I got the error "No kernel modules found". The mirror is the default and recommended [3].
Upon investigation with the help of the users mailing list it turns out that the file that the wiki says we should use does not work.
This is what it says in the wiki:
"Download the "mini.iso" for your location and CPU architecture located here: Debian mirrors under debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-*/current/images/netboot/".
The above points to a mini.iso that is one year old and does not work.
The following works (at least in amd64), replacing the word "unstable" with "bullseye". It may also work replacing it with "stable" although I have not tried it.
"Download the "mini.iso" for your location and CPU architecture located here: Debian mirrors under debian/dists/bullseye/main/installer-*/current/images/netboot/".
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
[2] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
[3] deb.debian.org
Cyril Brulebois
Jul 17, 2022, 12:40:03 AM7/17/22
to
Debian Bug Tracking System <ow...@bugs.debian.org> (2022-07-17):
> This is a temporary issue that always happens after Linux kernel
> updates and then gets automatically fixed after some time. In this case
> there was also a cron job delay so it took a bit longer. The Debian
> Installer team say this should be fixed in the next few hours.
>
> PS: the debian-boot list would have been the place to report this.
Sorry for the incomplete analysis I provided Paul with, the kernel issue
mismatch is usually temporary, but that's not a factor here: there seem
to be some weird things going on, mixing and matching bits from bullseye
and unstable?
Anyway, there's another issue for d-i builds in unstable currently:
lvm2-udeb is not installable, which is why some builds are failing. I've
filed a bug report but it's not showing up just yet.
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (ki...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
> This is a temporary issue that always happens after Linux kernel
> updates and then gets automatically fixed after some time. In this case
> there was also a cron job delay so it took a bit longer. The Debian
> Installer team say this should be fixed in the next few hours.
>
> PS: the debian-boot list would have been the place to report this.
Sorry for the incomplete analysis I provided Paul with, the kernel issue
mismatch is usually temporary, but that's not a factor here: there seem
to be some weird things going on, mixing and matching bits from bullseye
and unstable?
Anyway, there's another issue for d-i builds in unstable currently:
lvm2-udeb is not installable, which is why some builds are failing. I've
filed a bug report but it's not showing up just yet.
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (ki...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Piscium
Jul 17, 2022, 4:00:03 AM7/17/22
to
On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 at 05:11, Cyril Brulebois <ki...@debian.org> wrote:
[snip]
to use ([2], UK mirror). I got the error message I reported. I then
dropped down to the Busybox shell. I ran 'uname -a' and it told me I
was running the debian-sid kernel 5.10.0-8, built on 2021-07-28.
In other words, the wiki is telling me use in the installation a
mini.iso that is indeed built for Sid, not Bullseye, however what is
strange is that Sid being a fast moving rolling release I am being
told to use a file that is just 11 days short of one year old! The
mirror web page says the upload date is 31-Jul-2021 04:20. The above
is in the UK mirror. I looked at the German mirror to see if it was a
problem just with the UK mirror, but it is is the same date, also
nearly one year old.
The Bullseye file that I used to successfully install Sid [3] is
timestamped 05-Jul-2022 15:57, which is only 12 days old. If you
compare the two links below in [2] and [3], the difference is that [2]
is in unstable (one year old file) and [3] is in bullseye (12 days
old). The bullseye file is recent whereas the Sid file is ancient.
This is counter-intuitive.
Cyril said "there seem to be some weird things going on, mixing and
matching bits from bullseye and unstable?". Yes, it seems so, or at
least something along those lines.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
[2] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
(FAILURE)
[3] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/bullseye/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
(SUCCESS)
[snip]
> there seem
> to be some weird things going on, mixing and matching bits from bullseye
> and unstable?
I tried to install Sid with the mini.iso that the wiki ([1]) told me
> to be some weird things going on, mixing and matching bits from bullseye
> and unstable?
to use ([2], UK mirror). I got the error message I reported. I then
dropped down to the Busybox shell. I ran 'uname -a' and it told me I
was running the debian-sid kernel 5.10.0-8, built on 2021-07-28.
In other words, the wiki is telling me use in the installation a
mini.iso that is indeed built for Sid, not Bullseye, however what is
strange is that Sid being a fast moving rolling release I am being
told to use a file that is just 11 days short of one year old! The
mirror web page says the upload date is 31-Jul-2021 04:20. The above
is in the UK mirror. I looked at the German mirror to see if it was a
problem just with the UK mirror, but it is is the same date, also
nearly one year old.
The Bullseye file that I used to successfully install Sid [3] is
timestamped 05-Jul-2022 15:57, which is only 12 days old. If you
compare the two links below in [2] and [3], the difference is that [2]
is in unstable (one year old file) and [3] is in bullseye (12 days
old). The bullseye file is recent whereas the Sid file is ancient.
This is counter-intuitive.
Cyril said "there seem to be some weird things going on, mixing and
matching bits from bullseye and unstable?". Yes, it seems so, or at
least something along those lines.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
[2] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
[3] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/bullseye/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
(SUCCESS)
Cyril Brulebois
Jul 17, 2022, 4:30:03 AM7/17/22
to
Piscium <gro...@gmail.com> (2022-07-17):
release, so yes, the situation you're describing is less than ideal.
The debian-installer package got updated for the 11.4 point release
(bullseye), and it was propagated upward (prop-up) to testing/unstable
to satisfy version constraints; but the same doesn't happen for the
contents of the installer-* directories, hence the timestamp differences
you're seeing.
> Cyril said "there seem to be some weird things going on, mixing and
> matching bits from bullseye and unstable?". Yes, it seems so, or at
> least something along those lines.
>
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
> [2] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
> (FAILURE)
> [3] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/bullseye/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
> (SUCCESS)
Until an alpha release of the installer finds its way to unstable, I'd
advise using daily builds:
https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/daily-build-overview.html
https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/
Note that the netboot mini.iso builds fine, but using lvm2 at runtime is
likely to be problematic due to:
https://bugs.debian.org/1015174
> The Bullseye file that I used to successfully install Sid [3] is
> timestamped 05-Jul-2022 15:57, which is only 12 days old. If you
> compare the two links below in [2] and [3], the difference is that [2]
> is in unstable (one year old file) and [3] is in bullseye (12 days
> old). The bullseye file is recent whereas the Sid file is ancient.
> This is counter-intuitive.
We shouldn't have let so much time go by without putting out an alpha
> timestamped 05-Jul-2022 15:57, which is only 12 days old. If you
> compare the two links below in [2] and [3], the difference is that [2]
> is in unstable (one year old file) and [3] is in bullseye (12 days
> old). The bullseye file is recent whereas the Sid file is ancient.
> This is counter-intuitive.
release, so yes, the situation you're describing is less than ideal.
The debian-installer package got updated for the 11.4 point release
(bullseye), and it was propagated upward (prop-up) to testing/unstable
to satisfy version constraints; but the same doesn't happen for the
contents of the installer-* directories, hence the timestamp differences
you're seeing.
> Cyril said "there seem to be some weird things going on, mixing and
> matching bits from bullseye and unstable?". Yes, it seems so, or at
> least something along those lines.
>
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable
> [2] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
> (FAILURE)
> [3] http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/dists/bullseye/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/mini.iso
> (SUCCESS)
advise using daily builds:
https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/daily-build-overview.html
https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/
Note that the netboot mini.iso builds fine, but using lvm2 at runtime is
likely to be problematic due to:
https://bugs.debian.org/1015174
Holger Wansing
Jul 17, 2022, 6:40:03 AM7/17/22
to
Hi,
Cyril Brulebois <ki...@debian.org> wrote (Sun, 17 Jul 2022 10:18:57 +0200):
> Until an alpha release of the installer finds its way to unstable, I'd
> advise using daily builds:
> https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/daily-build-overview.html
> https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/
I have changed the link on the https://wiki.debian.org/DebianUnstable wiki
page to the above.
(Of course, the netboot image suffers from the kernel-mismatch issue from
time to time, so it's not guaranteed to work, but this one is at least better
than the even older mini.iso from the last testing d-i release.)
Holger
--
Holger Wansing <hwan...@mailbox.org>
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Cyril Brulebois <ki...@debian.org> wrote (Sun, 17 Jul 2022 10:18:57 +0200):
> Until an alpha release of the installer finds its way to unstable, I'd
> advise using daily builds:
> https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/daily-build-overview.html
> https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/amd64/
page to the above.
(Of course, the netboot image suffers from the kernel-mismatch issue from
time to time, so it's not guaranteed to work, but this one is at least better
than the even older mini.iso from the last testing d-i release.)
Holger
--
Holger Wansing <hwan...@mailbox.org>
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
0 new messages