Bug#234581: marked as done (iso doesn't checksum)
Your message dated Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:19:21 -0400
with message-id <20040705181921.GA27194@kitenet.net>
and subject line closing
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; 24 Feb 2004 16:58:13 +0000
>From Patrick.Heck@olin.edu Tue Feb 24 08:58:13 2004
Return-path: <Patrick.Heck@olin.edu>
Received: from olin.edu (olinexvs01.olin.edu) [4.21.173.2]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Avfsr-0002VA-00; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:58:13 -0800
Received: from olinexfe01.olin.edu ([10.1.15.93]) by olinexvs01.olin.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:57:42 -0500
Received: from olin.edu ([4.36.33.205])
by olinexfe01.olin.edu (SAVSMTP 3.0.0.44) with SMTP id M2004022411574128611
; Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:57:41 -0500
Message-ID: <403B801C.10001@olin.edu>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:47:24 -0500
From: Gus Heck <gus.heck@olin.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030917
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: iso doesn't checksum
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2004 16:57:42.0232 (UTC) FILETIME=[512DAD80:01C3FAF7]
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_22
(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
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_22
X-Spam-Level:
Package: installation-reports
Debian-installer-version: sarge-i386.netinst.iso from
uname -a: Linux cs101srv 2.4.22-1-386 #9 Sat Oct 4 14:30:39 EST 2003 i686 unkown
Date: 2/23/04 to 2/24/04
Method: Boot from CD using ISO
Machine:
Processor: Dual Pentium III 1 Ghz, Intel stl2 mb
Memory: 1GB ECC RAM
Root Device: Adaptec 2100s SCSI RAID-1 with 2 Fujitsu 10k 68pin drives
Root Size/partition table:
Prob not relevant, but mail me if you think you need it.
Output of lspci:
not avail.
Base System Installation Checklist:
Initial boot worked: [yes ]
Configure network HW: [? ]
Config network: [Error ] (asked hostname twice, domain 0, mirror 0
Detect CD: [yes ]
Load installer modules: [yes ]
Detect hard drives: [yes ] (adaptec 2100s raid! good!)
Partition hard drives: [yes ]
Create file systems: [yes ]
Mount partitions: [in shell at least ]
Install base system: [Failed on libacl1 & checksum from menu fails!]
Install boot loader: [ ]
Reboot: [ ]
[O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it
Comments/Problems:
I have wasted half a pack of CD's and 2 days trying different isos both
from debian installer and jigdo for the woody release. I am charged
with evaluating potential replacements for our soon-to-be-expensive
redhat install. The only installer which seemed to be able to deal with
my raid card is this one. I only found it with the help of a student who
is our local Debian Prophet. I downloaded it 3 times and burned it at
max, 16x, 8x and 4x to be sure the checksum failure wasn't something I
did. Debian is getting a "does not install" rating. I cannot spend any
more time on your distro and need to move on to SUSE/Mandrake/Gentoo. I
had hoped Debian would work out, and had placed it at the top of the
list because it is my impression that it has aproximately as large a
user base as RedHat.
If it's hard/impossible to install it doesn't matter how well it runs, I
just can't evaluate it.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 234581-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Jul 2004 19:54:09 +0000
>From joey@kitenet.net Mon Jul 05 12:54:09 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 1BhZXV-0007on-00; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:54:09 -0700
Received: from dragon.kitenet.net (216-98-91-133.access.naxs.com [216.98.91.133])
(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 C8F5918DD7
for <234581-done@bugs.debian.org>; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:51:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by dragon.kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 785EC6EE6E; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:19:21 -0400
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
To: 234581-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: closing
Message-ID: <20040705181921.GA27194@kitenet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i
Delivered-To: 234581-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:
--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This report was very unclear. What checksum was failing? One external to
the installer? Then you have bad media or some problem outside our
control. The one inside the installer? Then the installer must have
minimally worked, and it was problably the checksum checker being broken
(since fixed). Was there some other problem? Please try to proviude more
detail in the future.
Since there has been no response to 2 requests for more info since May,
I am closing this report.
--=20
see shy jo
--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS
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)
iD8DBQFA6Zupd8HHehbQuO8RAvtCAJ9cxilfBxBuPyRYgR0FKiYtdKb9mgCg352U
LgyuqOIqH4PrtYYEf8140Uw=
=8BBb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS--
Reply to: