Bug#60371: base, installation glitches (configure network, start new system)
> Version: 2.2.7-2000-02-13
> Severity: grave
>
> I have a network card, but I chose not to configure it during installation.
> In the `Configure the Network' section, I enter my machine name, and at the
> next step, it complains that no network interfaces were found, asking me if
> I want to abort. I don't want to, so I say NO, which results in the
> splash-screen "Software in the Public Interest ... presents". This is what
> happens when it crashes out, yes ?
I think this is already fixed in the CVS.
> If I say "YES" instead, I just keep on getting that section come up as the
> default. I can do the later stages of installation by hand, but this is a
> severe pain in the neck.
Maybe we need a "do not configure network" option.
> - - -
>
> When I get to "Start new system", it reports:
>
> Could not setup init-chroot for starting the new system. Try simply
> rebooting instead.
This is a non-functioning feature. It is disabled properly in CVS now.
> - - -
>
> After rebooting, it prompted to scan in the CDROMs for APT. After scanning
> a CDROM it prompted to scan another YES NO. It defaults to NO, but because
> there are only two buttons, it is not obvious which one is highlighted,
> unless you remember the colours from the other menus. So I kept thinking it
> was on YES, when it was on NO, and when I thought I said NO, it went and
> scanned my CD-ROM again. This confusion could be avoided by putting another
> button on there, perhaps CANCEL (==NO). Then it would be obvious which one
> was highlighted (2 unhighlighted vs 1 highlighted). I'm not an
> unintelligent user. If it fooled me, it will fool others.
Agreed, I ran into this problem aswell. Really confusing.
Thanks
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: