Bug#227600: marked as done (expert mode asks too many questions)
Your message dated Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:31:21 -0400
with message-id <20040611203121.GA7292@kitenet.net>
and subject line processing report
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jan 2004 00:48:20 +0000
>From tbm@cyrius.com Tue Jan 13 18:48:20 2004
Return-path: <tbm@cyrius.com>
Received: from bangpath.uucico.de [195.71.9.197]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AgYHE-0001XL-00; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:48:52 -0600
Received: by bangpath.uucico.de (Postfix, from userid 10)
id 7CF9426B91; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 00:48:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: by deprecation.cyrius.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id A5460FF05; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:48:25 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:48:25 +0000
From: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: hostname asked twice, /target unmounted too early, default real name
Message-ID: <20040113234825.GA21511@deprecation.cyrius.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_01_13
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on master.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_01_13
X-Spam-Level:
Package: installation-reports
INSTALL REPORT
Debian-installer-version: daily from 2004-01-09
http://gluck.debian.org/~manty/testing/netinst/i386/20040109/sarge-i386-netinst.iso
uname -a: 2.4.23-1-386
Method: booted off daily CD image
Machine: Random Laptop
Processor: Celeron 366
Memory: 160 MB
Root Device: IDE
Base System Installation Checklist:
Initial boot worked: [O]
Configure network HW: [E]
Config network: [O] some problems
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] some problems
Reboot: [O] some problems
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it
Comments/Problems:
I have the same problems with my PCMCIA network card as James Troup in
#227498: I load the 3c59x module and even though it is loaded fine
(and /proc/net/devices immediately shows that eth0 is there) I get a
"Ethernet card not found" error. Also, as in #227498, it doesn't work
after reboot ("unresolved symbol" error in i82356.o).
It asks me for my hostname twice. After loading the ethernet module,
I enter the hostname. Then it tries to configure DHCP, fails, and I
configure a static address - IP, netmask, gateway, DNS... and hostname
again (showing the one I chose before).
I installed the base system, LILO and then I'm at the "Finish the
installation and reboot" screen. I realize I'd like to have GRUB
instead, and press "no" (or "go back" or whatever it was) here. GRUB
fails to install because the CD-ROM and /target have been unmounted
already! I think the CD should only be ejected and /target unmounted
if people actually select "Reboot" at the "Finish the installation and
reboot" screen and not before.
After getting the "Installing GRUB in /target failed." message, I get
into the main menu. However, the status bar from "Installing GRUB
boot loader" is still in the background. Quite ugly.
Pressing "reboot" in the "Finish the installation and reboot" screen,
it tries to refresh the screen before rebooting, but doesn't actually
refresh the whole screen (most of it is black, but the "Go back" and
"Reboot" is still there). This laptop might be a bit slow, but not
that terribly.
After reboot: in the past, base-config would ask me if I wanted to
create an user account. It no longer does this, which is fine with
me, but it also does not ask for the real name anymore and creates an
account with "Debian user". We really shouldn't do that. I noticed
that during base-config was running, the debconf priority was set to
"high" and later it was "medium". (Is it even base-config that does
this? I cannot find the user creation code in there.)
I tried aptitude for the first time. I only had a CD with main on it,
and when I pressed on a section in aptitude it wouldn't actually show
me a listing of packages straight away, but showed "main" first. This
makes it really quite tiresome to use. Since surely 99% of users will
only have main, aptitude should cope with this and not show "main" if
there is only main to choose from.
I also tried expert mode. Way too many questions are shown here. I
thought I might use "expert" by default, but this is _really_ painful.
During hardware detection, it asks me for additional parameters for
_every module_! This is surely a bit too much, eve n for expert mode.
Also, even though there is only one kernel package, it showed me which
one to install and I had to press "ok". You can argue about the
latter, but the former is clearly insane.
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 227600-done) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2004 20:32:12 +0000
>From joey@kitenet.net Fri Jun 11 13:32:12 2004
Return-path: <joey@kitenet.net>
Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BYshA-0000lt-00; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:32:12 -0700
Received: from dragon.kitenet.net (216-98-91-136.access.naxs.com [216.98.91.136])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "Joey Hess", Issuer "Joey Hess" (verified OK))
by kitenet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D909618127
for <227600-done@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 20:32:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by dragon.kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id D8DEE6EC36; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:31:21 -0400
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
To: 227600-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: processing report
Message-ID: <20040611203121.GA7292@kitenet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
Delivered-To: 227600-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm processing old installation reports, and have, finally, gotten to
yours. Thanks for talking the time to file an installation report.
I'm closing your installation report, after determining that:
- Some problems you reported are no longer present in current versions of t=
he
installer.
- Some problems you reported are known, and have existing bugs in the BTS.
- It contained some previously unreported problem(s). Bugs have been cloned
from your installation report for those problem(s), and reassigned to the
relevant packages.
If you can, please try installing again using a current version of the
debian installer. I recommend the tc1 release, which you can find on our
web page, <http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/>. If you can, try
to reproduce the problems you reported using it, so we can verify that
they're all fixed. We look forward to your new installation report.
--=20
see shy jo
--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAyhaZd8HHehbQuO8RAg/4AKDBiZCHfwZKkAPIOMrySfbd4PKnvACgrhrG
queuGqUCqHTtiT0CzpkExQo=
=s0C9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI--
Reply to: