Bug#248905: marked as done (installation report)
Your message dated Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:24:31 +0200
with message-id <200410141924.31297.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
and subject line Bug#248905: about your Debian installation 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; 13 May 2004 19:29:29 +0000
>From craig@redtree.com Thu May 13 12:29:29 2004
Return-path: <craig@redtree.com>
Received: from mnet-fe-244-48-188.monarch.net (ssl.redtree.com) [24.244.48.188]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BOLtY-0006QW-00; Thu, 13 May 2004 12:29:28 -0700
Received: from mnet-fe-244-48-187.monarch.net (redtree.com) [24.244.48.187]
by ssl.redtree.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1BOLtX-0006No-00; Thu, 13 May 2004 13:29:27 -0600
Message-ID: <40A3CC84.7090009@redtree.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 13:29:08 -0600
From: Craig Morris <craig@redtree.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: installation report
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Delivered-To: submit@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=-6.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
Package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version: 2004-05-12
http://cdimage.debian.org/pub/cdimage-testing/sarge_d-i/i386/beta4/sarge-i386-netinst.iso
uname -a: 2.4.25-1-386 #2 Wed Apr 14 19:38:08 EST 2004 i686 GNU/Linux
Date: 2004-05-12 afternoon
Method: CDROM from downloaded iso - http for apt
Machine: Home brew with D865PERL motherboard
Processor: P4 2.8ghz
Memory: 1 GB
Root Device: ATA seagate barracuda 120GB
Root Size/partition table: accepted install standard for multiuser which
looked about what I would have picked anyway
Output of lspci:
Base System Installation Checklist:
Initial boot worked: [0]
Configure network HW: [0]
Config network: [E]
Detect CD: [0]
Load installer modules: [0]
Detect hard drives: [0]
Partition hard drives: [0]
Create file systems: [0]
Mount partitions: [0]
Install base system: [0]
Install boot loader: [0]
Reboot: [0]
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it
Comments/Problems:
Did two installs
On the first I took the preselected Don't touch keymap option and this
resulted in apt installation of modules failing. Yes the doc say you
probably should select a keymap, but leaves the impression that doing
nothing would be fine if you want to stick with what you designated
earlier. In any event making this mistake would be a show stopper for a
newbie.
Rather than dick around sorting out what packages failed etc., I just
did a reinstall, which created a problem with network configuration. On
the first install I did not have the network card plugged in, DHCP
failed and the installer correctly asked me to manually input IP address
etc. This was fine since I have static IPs and no DHCP server.
To my surprise on the second install the DHCP scan appeared to work and
I was not asked for additional information. However when it came time
to retrieve modules from the net, the process failed with multiple DHCP
messages. Switching consoles and manually setting up
/etc/network/interfaces and ifup eth0 allowed everything to proceed, but
again would dead end someone not experienced with Linux.
I believe what happened is that the installer got some information from
my cable provider - I have a small business account with fixed IPs -
since it created a resolv.conf with the cable providers domain and dns
servers. However it did could not get IP addresses.
This is probably an unusual situation and most folks who have fixed IP
addresses and are trying to install Debian will know what to do, but I
thought I would report it anyway.
On a positive note, I was very impressed at how it found all my hardware
and with the exception of these minor issues was very painless.
--
Craig Morris - craig@redtree.com
Fernie, BC, Canada
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 248905-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Oct 2004 17:25:02 +0000
>From aragorn@tiscali.nl Thu Oct 14 10:25:02 2004
Return-path: <aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Received: from 195-240-184-66-mx.xdsl.tiscali.nl (elrond.fjphome.nl) [195.240.184.66]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CI9La-0006BX-00; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:25:02 -0700
Received: from strider.fjphome.nl ([10.19.66.86] ident=fjp)
by elrond.fjphome.nl with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1CI9L5-00037u-00
for <248905-done@bugs.debian.org>; Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:24:31 +0200
From: Frans Pop <aragorn@tiscali.nl>
To: 248905-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#248905: about your Debian installation report
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 19:24:31 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <20041013205432.609106E394@dragon.kitenet.net> <[🔎] 20041014165227.GI11221@atlin.redtree.com>
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20041014165227.GI11221@atlin.redtree.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200410141924.31297.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Delivered-To: 248905-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=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
On Thursday 14 October 2004 18:52, Craig Morris wrote:
> Alas I cannot duplicate this test on the original machine since I really
> don't want to take it out of service. I don't even have a spare static
> IP anymore to try it on another machine and of course installing on
> different machines with different net connections has worked fine.
Closing the report accordingly.
Reply to: