15604 2008-05-12 03:18:37 +0400 static-BIOS-codes was needed 2014-11-05 20:16:20 +0300 1 1 3 Distributions Branch 4.0 lilo 4.0 all Linux CLOSED WONTFIX P2 normal --- 15605 1 imz nobody mike ruslandh slazav qa-4.0 oldest_to_newest 69673 0 imz 2008-05-12 03:18:37 +0400 ftp://ftp.altlinux.org/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Desktop/4.0.3/iso/altlinux-4.0.3-desktop-i586-install_ru-dvd5.iso Although "man lilo.conf" says about static-BIOS-codes: In general, this option should never be used, except as a bug workaround. I encountered a configuration where the only way to install a working LILO was by using this option. So, it was probably a bug in lilo, wasn't it? The computer had: /dev/hda (empty), /dev/hdb (the installer in the automatic mode installed the ALTLinux system onto it), /dev/hdc (a CD drive), /dev/hdd (a CD drive). (Similar things were discussed in https://bugzilla.altlinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6801 , https://bugzilla.altlinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6747 .) Trying to install LILO onto /dev/hda results in a fatal error message, which had the meaning like this: can't install LILO on /dev/hda because both /dev/hda and /dev/hdb have the same BIOS code (0x80). Installing LILO onto /dev/hdb succeeds, but is useless: the BIOS of this computer has no possibility to boot from /dev/hdb, only from /dev/hda and /dev/hdc. After I added "static-BIOS-codes" to /etc/lilo.conf, LILO could be installed onto /dev/hda and it worked (it successfully booted ALTLinux from /dev/hdb). Expected Results: This situation can be handled by lilo without the special option which is intended to be "a bug workaround" only. 69679 1 imz 2008-05-12 04:04:13 +0400 https://bugzilla.altlinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15605 describes such a case. 69901 2 mike 2008-05-14 11:57:08 +0400 (In reply to comment #0) > In general, this option should never be used, except as a bug workaround. > I encountered a configuration where the only way to install a working LILO was > by using this option. So, it was probably a bug in lilo, wasn't it? Probably in BIOS. 70153 3 imz 2008-05-18 00:29:45 +0400 (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #0) > > In general, this option should never be used, except as a bug workaround. > > I encountered a configuration where the only way to install a working LILO was > > by using this option. So, it was probably a bug in lilo, wasn't it? > Probably in BIOS. Ah, I see. :) So, I misunderstood the manpage. What to do with the bug? INVALID? 70159 4 imz 2008-05-18 01:21:17 +0400 (In reply to comment #2) > > In general, this option should never be used, except as a bug workaround. > Probably in BIOS. But, well, I haven't dealt much with IDE, so I don't know whether it's normal: this BIOS could only boot from /dev/hda and /dev/hdc. I considered it to be an acceptable restriction of the BIOS and not a bug. But then, if I want to boot the ALTLinux system installed on /dev/hdb, I need to install lilo to /dev/hda. But lilo doesn't want to install itself onto /dev/hda without this option (I think, it's important that the kernel is on /dev/hdb in this case). Isn't it a problem of lilo? 148454 5 mike 2014-11-05 20:16:20 +0300 В 4.0/branch исправления не будут вноситься уже технически (заглушена очередь на сборку), поэтому прошу ошибки, актуальные для sisyphus/p7/t7, перевесить на текущие ветки или сизиф.