Bug#451208: installation-report: Successful install
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Bill Wohler wrote:
> > > Please find hardware-summary attached. Note that free: stanza is
> > > incorrect--I actually have 2 GB of memory.
> >
> > It might, but Linux is definitely only seeing a bit less than 1 GB of
> > that. Does "free" report the full 2 GB on other OSes (Ubuntu Live CD,
> > Windows?), and/or do you see the full 2 GB with "memtest86+"?
>
> Hi Jim, I just noticed that 1 GB was in the report. My system--once
> installed--has always reported 2 GB. The question is: why did only 1 GB
> appear in the report?
No idea. But it _does_ mean that the kernel only saw 1 GB during the
installation. One possible cause may be that the installer uses a 486
kernel while the installed system will probably have gotten a 686 kernel.
This is not an installer issue, but a kernel issue.
If you want to check this out further, you should start by carefully
comparing the output of 'dmesg' on the installed system with the first part
(the part that has the kernel boot messages) of the installation syslog
file in /var/log/installer.
> > If LC_ALL was set to C during installation, I think libpaper1 would
> > have defaulted to A4 (because "locale width" and "locale height"
> > return A4 size in that case)
>
> Hmmm, I recall entering my language and locale at the beginning of the
> installation. Perhaps the installer should have set LC_ALL to
> en_US.UTF-8, in which case libpaper1 would have defaulted to letter
> instead of A4. Maybe this *is* a bug in the installer?
No, if anything it is a bug in the individual packages that are involved.
IIRC the fact that the default value in /etc/papersize will not always match
the locale (I think it's basically always "letter" by default) is a known
issue. You can change it by running 'dpkg-reconfigure libpaper1'. See also
'man papersize'.
However, it may also be a problem with some individual package and not
related to /etc/papersize.
Anyway, it's not an issue with the installation system itself.
Cheers,
FJP
Reply to: