You are here
beric - Sat, 2009/12/12 - 21:57
Hello. As I posted http://www.turnkeylinux.org/docs/tklpatch/development#comment-1296 My patch conf looks like this :
#!/bin/bash -ex
HOSTNAME=somehost
# set hostname
echo "$HOSTNAME" > /etc/hostname
sed -i "s|127.0.1.1 \(.*\)|127.0.1.1 $HOSTNAME|" /etc/hosts
I have nothing in deb/ or overlay/
As I mentioned the result is iso that is loading busybox shell. couldn't see any errors on the kernel boot messages.
One thing I should mention is that I'm running the tklpatch from other distro and not ubuntu. don't know if that matters.
Any hints ?
Forum:
Questions and ideas
Hi Liraz I tried from gentoo.
Hi Liraz
I tried from gentoo. I had no error/warning messages using the patch creation.
I tried from turnkey and the generated ISO is OK.
Thanks for your advice.
Eric.
I've got the same problem, from Ubuntu
I'm getting what seems to be a similar problem with my ISO, using Ubuntu 64-bit (Karmic). I'm patching Turnkey Core 2009.02 Hardy x86, and running the resulting ISO in Sun's VirtualBox 3.012 r54655. I've created some patches before, but I don't think I've gotten one to work yet.
The output from tklpatch:
Then I create a VirtualBox machine with my typical defaults, booting from the virtual CD image. I wanted to install to virtual disk, but trying to boot a live system does the same thing: boot message scroll by without looking suspicious to a careful eye, then dropping into the (initramfs) prompt. I can attempt to capture boot messages, but I wanted to run this by someone first.
My patch structure is:
Note that in the above tklpatch log, the deb tries to install before the conf is run so it does not have its prerequisites yet and doesn't install. That's fine for right now, the conf installs OpenJVM JRE (as you'll see below) Conf contains these lines:
Any thoughts?
Try patching tklpatch-chroot
So try patching tklpatch-chroot. Prepend "linux32" to this command:
So it looks like this: If that's the problem then we should be able to fix it somehow (e.g., maybe by detecting a 64bit environment, etc.)I eneded up running tklpach from inside tk-core 32bit chroot.
I guess the environment makes the difference. I tried from 64bit gentoo.
I think that uname -r has something to do with this problem.
anyway to use tklpatch from gentoo I do "linux32 chroot core login" after /dev/pts and /proc are mounted properly.
you can try the same approach with karmic, hope that helps.
I am experiencing a similar issue
It appears as though I am experiencing the same or a similar issue. I have been attempting to create a patch that installs a single .deb, however installation of the patched .iso halts at the (initiramfs) prompt.
I came across this thread and have tried the fix suggested here without any success. I noticed originally that there were some error messages in relation to the locale. I found another thread which suggested changing the locale to en_GB, which I did. After that I no longer received any error in relation to the locale.
I have now created a very basic patch that does little more than change the hostname in the conf file.
HOSTNAME=testhost
# set hostname
echo "$HOSTNAME" > /etc/hostname
sed -i "s|127.0.1.1 \(.*\)|127.0.1.1 $HOSTNAME|" /etc/hosts
This patch has been applied to the turnkey core. The output of that operation is:
This seemingly basic patched iso still fails to install, halting in exactly the same place. I'm not sure what to do next to get this working.
You'll need to run TKLPatch inside a compatible distribution
I recommend you do your TKLPatching inside a compatible TurnKey Core VM.
If you're patching one of the existing appliances, you'll want to run tklpatch inside the released TurnKey Core (based on Hardy). If you're patching the Lucid TurnKey Core Beta you'll need to run tklpatch inside Lucid TurnKey Core Beta.
Thanks
Thanks Liraz. I shall try it first thing Monday morning. And let you know how I go.
Cheers!
Easy workaround
Is to install TKL Core to a VM (I like VirtualBox but there are others). I use SSH (via Terminal) and SFTP (via FileZilla) to work in the system. Works nicely I reckon and keeps everything separate. I have different VMs for different patches I'm working on.
[edit] Liraz beat me - but I actually missed that bit about different versions of Ubuntu being incompatable...
Good idea
I like that idea. I think I will take the same approach!
Cheers!
Add new comment