On Apr 6, 21:41, David Brownlee wrote:
   > Subject: Re: 1.5 installation into Cyrix from scratch
   > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Kazushi (Jam) Marukawa wrote:
   > >    On Apr 5, 17:50, David Brownlee wrote:
   > >    > Subject: Re: 1.5 installation into Cyrix from scratch
   > >    > On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Kazushi (Jam) Marukawa wrote:
   > >    > >  - Installation of 1.5 failed because of uvm_pagefault.  I
   > >    > >    guess this is caused by the Cyrix pmap_zero problem.
   > >    >
   > >    > 	Does it panic when loading the install kernel from floppy?
   > >    > 	If so, are you able to test a 1.5.1_ALPHA install floppy
   > >    > 	(do not need to install, just confirm problem is fixed).
   > >
   > > No.  It paniced while it is executing pax for base or comp.
   > > On the other hand, another report at 13 Jan, 2001 on
   > > port-i386 ML, said it paniced while creating devices.
   > >
   > 	Bugger... that is going to be an awkward one to test.
   > 	If someone with a 'problem' cyrix could test the recent
   > 	1.5.1_ALPHA snapshot that would be a very useful datapoint
   > 	(unfortunately they'll need to try a full install)

However, two other guys were saying no error, so there is a
possibility that my machine has a problem.  I was not using
this machine for a year.  I'll try to update.

   > > Sorry, no.  This happened when I did following things.  The
   > > installer did newfs, fsck, and mount wd0a, then it started
   > > newfs wd0e.  If I pushed ^C, it crashed.  Or, the end of
   > > installation, it crashed while trying to reboot.  Or, I
   > > typed "mount wd0a /mnt", and found I need fsck, then I typed
   > > "umount /mnt", it crashed.  So, I though it crashes when it
   > > try to unmount modified file system.
   > >
   > 	Did the kernel panic with a similar message to the one in
   > 	the pax or MAKEDEV panic above?

No.  It is completely different.  Sorry, I didn't make any
notes about that.  I'll check it soon.

   > >    > >  - After installation, my machine didn't boot.  It showed
   > >    > >    "Invalid partition table" error.  I need to do "fdisk -B"
   > >    > >    by hand.  This hard drive was a boot drive of Win98, so I
   > >    > >    thought it already have Win98's MBR.  Maybe Win98's MBR
   > >    > >    is not compatible...  Is it possible to install MBR
   > >    > >    automatically with confirmation as a part of installation
   > >    > >    job?
   > >    >
   > >    > 	We _really_ ought to ask if we should unconditionally overwrite
   > >    > 	the MBR - did the 1.5R snapshot not include a question like this?
   > >
   > > It asked me to write boot something at the very beginning of
   > > installation.  I thought it was MBR question, but MBR was
   > > not installed.  So, I think this question was about
   > > installboot.  I remember I didn't get any questions about
   > > MBR.  Did it ask me after unmounting all file systems?  If
   > > so, I understand I couldn't see it because of above unmount
   > > problem.
   > >
   > 	Frank mentioned in another mail that the MBR if there are
   > 	multiple MBR partitions and you answer no to both bootloader
   > 	and bootcode questions - did you get two questions?

I remember it asked only once.  It asked me which boot code
I prefere either console or com0.  I said "use entire disk",
"use default partitioning without X", "install without X".
In the middile of them, I only once said "install boot_com0
something".  I'll make a log what I said next time.

-- Kazushi
There is no substitute for good manners, except, perhaps, fast
reflexes.