[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Installation report



On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 10:39:39AM +0100, Martin Sjögren wrote:

> The mounting tool is undergoing a rewrite too :) Perhaps it would make
> sense not to actually mount the partitions until the user has made all
> his choices.

Editing the fstab (with a tool, or if the user wishes, directly),
including swap may be the way... Then mounting the partitions and swap
using it. The problem would be devfs (for the installer) vs non-devfs
(once the system has reboot) Just an idea...

> > * Having finally got a sarge installed, rebooting...
> > 
> > (btw, i needed to umount -a; reboot by hand since choice 11 did't want to do
> > that until i installed a bootloader, which i didn't want.)
> 
> Yeah, we need a more flexible way for skipping steps.

It also seemed than when the installation crashes at some point (it
happened to me a few times, giving a message like "postinst exited with
status nnn"), the menu system is messing up with what has/hasn't been
done yet. Well, i didn't pay too much attention, i don't remember
exactly what happened.

> Well, the generated /target/etc/fstab doesn't use devfs, so if you try
> to boot a kernel with devfs, you're going to have problems, yes...

I suppose this isn't an install-related thing, but why debian hasn't
moved to devfs by default ? It's great and it seems it's getting
stable (i use it for a while and never experienced any problem, apart
from programs looking for unexisting things while not running devfsd...)

> > - The generated /etc/network/interfaces was wrong, using dhcp method instead
> >   of static.
> 
> What do you mean? Had you used dhcp during the install but it wrote
> config for static? Or the opposite? netcfg is undergoing a rewrite too
> :)

I had used static for install, it wrote me a dhcp
/etc/network/interfaces.

> Thanks a lot!

Thanks for all your work... Despite the current maturity,
debian-installer seems really promising.

-- 
Jeremie Koenig <sprite@sprite.fr.eu.org>



Reply to: