Install CDROM boot problems

[Shahms King]

Neither FC1 nor FC2 test 1 install CDROMs will boot from my laptop's
firewire cdrom.  It's not a problem of the installer not working, I
don't see any indication that any attempt was made to boot from CDROM at
all, no ISOLINUX message, nothing.  The CDs boot just fine in my desktop
and the RedHat 9 discs will boot (and install) without a problem.

I found some similar bugs in bugzilla when going from RH7.3 -> RH8, but
nothing more recent than that.  Is this a known issue? What changed from
RH9 -> FC1 that might be causing this? 
-- 
Shahms King <shahms(a)shahms.com&gt;

[Leon Kanter]

Shahms King пишет:

> Neither FC1 nor FC2 test 1 install CDROMs will boot from my
> laptop's
> firewire cdrom.  It's not a problem of the installer not working, I
> don't see any indication that any attempt was made to boot from CDROM at
> all, no ISOLINUX message, nothing.  The CDs boot just fine in my desktop
> and the RedHat 9 discs will boot (and install) without a problem.
>
> I found some similar bugs in bugzilla when going from RH7.3 -> RH8, but
> nothing more recent than that.  Is this a known issue? What changed from
> RH9 -> FC1 that might be causing this? 
>   
>  
Looks like something is wrong with boot CD format. My desktop box is 
unable to boot from FC2-test2-i386-disc1.iso, while laptop booted OK. 
Media itself was successfully verified on desktop box that did not want 
to boot from it, so I think the problem is between bios and boot record.

[Féliciano Matias]

Le ven 26/03/2004 à 17:16, Shahms King a écrit :
>  Neither FC1 nor FC2 test 1 install CDROMs will boot from my
> laptop's
>  firewire cdrom.  It's not a problem of the installer not working, I
>  don't see any indication that any attempt was made to boot from CDROM at
>  all, no ISOLINUX message, nothing.  The CDs boot just fine in my desktop
>  and the RedHat 9 discs will boot (and install) without a problem.
>  
>  I found some similar bugs in bugzilla when going from RH7.3 -> RH8, but
>  nothing more recent than that.  Is this a known issue? What changed from
>  RH9 -> FC1 that might be causing this?  
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119386

>  -- 
>  Shahms King <shahms(a)shahms.com&gt;
>