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

Bug#244668: Package: installation-reports



Package: installation-reports

Debian-installer-version: sarge netinst official daily build 18th April
Date: 19th April, ~12:00pm GMT
Method: Booted from netinst CD, chose default boot options.

Processor: Athlon XP 1800
Memory: 512MB
Root Device: IDE HDD

Base System Installation Checklist:

Initial boot worked:    [O]
Configure network HW:   [E]
Config network:         [E]
Detect CD:              [O]
Load installer modules: [O]
Detect hard drives:     [O]
Partition hard drives:  [E]
Create file systems:    [O]
Mount partitions:       [O]
Install base system:    [O]
Install boot loader:    [O]
Reboot:                 [E]
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it

Comments/Problems:

1. The partitioner did not let me choose a mount point for my existing /home partition (reiserfs, hda9). I could choose the 'use existing data on this partition' option, but contrary to the 15th April netinst build, no mount point option then appeared.

2. I chose to reformat hda8 as reiserfs and mount it as /. I also chose to delete hda7, which was a small ext2 partition. The face icons on the main installer screen showed this correctly. But when I finished the main partitioner screen and was asked to confirm a summary of the changes, it claimed I was going to format hda7 with reiserfs. I cancelled the changes, and then only chose to format hda8, doing nothing to hda7. The summary was correct that time.

3. There didn't seem to be any problems with the network during the initial installation boot, but during the first 'real' bootup, network configuration failed, saying there was no such device eth0. However, eth0 works fine under Knoppix, and ethernet also works under XP. My card is a Realtek 8139too.

(I'm not sure if this is related to the reason I'm reinstalling Debian, which is that after several days of no rebooting a months-old Sarge netinst partition, the next bootup claimed eth0 did not exist, even though eth0 had been working perfectly.)




Reply to: