Bug#236499: installation-reports: debian-installer beta2 (daily) March 5
Package: installation-reports
Severity: Important
Tags: sarge
INSTALL REPORT
Debian-installer-version: Daily Build 5-Mar-2004 downloaded from
http://gluck.debian.org/cdimage/testing/netinst/i386/daily/
uname -a: <The result of running uname -a on a shell prompt>
Method: netinst 108MB CD image
Machine: Old Compaq computer
Processor: 200 MHz Pentium or some such
Memory: 128MB
Root Device: IDE /dev/hda
Root Size/partition table:
/dev/hda1 /boot 128MB reiserfs
/dev/hda2 swp 512MB
/dev/hda5 / 3.3GB (Balance of 4GB Disk) reiserfs
Output of lspci:
Not available -- system panic's on boot
Base System Installation Checklist:
Initial boot worked: [O]
Configure network HW: [O]
Config network: [O]
Detect CD: [O]
Load installer modules: [O]
Detect hard drives: [O]
Partition hard drives: [O]
Create file systems: [O]
Mount partitions: [O]
Install base system: [O]
Install boot loader: [O]
Reboot: [O]
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it
Comments/Problems:
Here is my report on installing with reiser after last night's failed
attempt at using xfs. Some comments:
During the installation the partitioning of the disk(s) is more
complicated and/or difficult that it should be. There are several
different methods on the netinst disk and most of them are a pain to
use and get in the way. Both times I used the menu item "Configure and
mount partitions" and this was easy to get the configuration I wanted.
The only problem is it apparently does not tell the installation
process that the disk(s) have been configured so every time I finish a
step the installer wants me to partition the disks!
Reboot went well except for fsck.reiserfs was not found.
fsck.reiserfs was not found during the boot up.
Grub was the boot manager choosen during the installation process but
during the post-install LILO was installed -- why? Luckily it wasn't
installed.
I'm guessing you've heard this a million times so I'll add my voice: why
isn't the 2.6 kernel installed? It is more important to me to have
sarge have a modern kernel rather than the old 2.4 kernel which is
about to join 2.2 in maintenance mode. I really hope the when sarge is
made the stable release it will be based on the 2.6 kernel -- even if
this results in an additional delay.
I hope this feedback is useful and I've filled in all the proper
information in a meaningful way. If not, please let me know the
correct way.
TIA,
Bill
Reply to: