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

Bug#236499: marked as done (installation-reports: debian-installer beta2 (daily) March 5)

Your message dated Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:46:57 -0400
with message-id <20040705184657.GA27777@kitenet.net>
and subject line closing old 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; 6 Mar 2004 14:23:54 +0000
>From whn@lopi.com Sat Mar 06 06:23:54 2004
Return-path: <whn@lopi.com>
Received: from whn.adsl.spfdma.crocker.net (p.lopi.com) [] 
	by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1AzciY-0008AG-00; Sat, 06 Mar 2004 06:23:54 -0800
Received: (qmail 25391 invoked by uid 1001); 6 Mar 2004 14:23:52 -0000
From: Bill Nugent <whn@lopi.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: installation-reports: debian-installer beta2 (daily) March 5
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:23:52 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200403060923.52081.whn@lopi.com>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_05 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no 

Package: installation-reports
Severity: Important
Tags: sarge


Debian-installer-version: Daily Build 5-Mar-2004 downloaded from 
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


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 

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.


Received: (at 236499-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Jul 2004 19:54:03 +0000
>From joey@kitenet.net Mon Jul 05 12:54:02 2004
Return-path: <joey@kitenet.net>
Received: from kitenet.net [] (postfix)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 1BhZXO-0007ij-00; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:54:02 -0700
Received: from dragon.kitenet.net (216-98-91-133.access.naxs.com [])
	(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 90AC618D8D
	for <236499-done@bugs.debian.org>; Mon,  5 Jul 2004 19:50:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by dragon.kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 47BE46EE95; Mon,  5 Jul 2004 14:46:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:46:57 -0400
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
To: 236499-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: closing old report
Message-ID: <20040705184657.GA27777@kitenet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KsGdsel6WgEHnImy"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
Delivered-To: 236499-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 

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All reported issues are fixed.

see shy jo

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)



Reply to: