Re: Bugs in the latest Debian Sid installer
Am Sonntag 09 August 2009 08:22:54 schrieb Christian Perrier:
> Quoting Uwe Bugla (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> > Hi everybody,
> > using the Debian testing installer from 4th August I stumbled over the
> > follwing bugs:
> > 1. console-data is missing in the list of necessary dependencies when you
> > install the basic system:
> > The consequence is:
> > You are trapped if you owe a non-American keyboard with a qwertz layout.
> > That complicates the installation process enourmously instead of
> > simplifying it.
> We're in the middle of a transition to console-setup. console-data
> should not be needed anymore. Still, it's not expected that you end up
> with an unconfigured keymap layout. Does the installed system *have*
> console-setup installed?
I did not find that out, so I guess the answer is "No"!
> It should have picked up the settings you made, in D-I, for the keymap
> (in your case, I suspect you picked 'German') and, thus, you should
> have a working keyboard layout on the installed system.
I have an unusable keyboard layout on the installed system, unfortunately.
After performing "apt-get install console-data" the keyboard layout is usable,
but without performing that step the usage is a big pain!
> In any case, "dpkg-reconfigure console-setup" on the installed system
> should help.
Sounds good, but is only helpful if you know that console-setup has been
installed or not. How can I find that out?
I will set up a couple of other workstations and I will keep on trying.....
> But, still, that has to be investigated as this is obviously a big
> regression. I'm not in position to do so, being half-dialup as of
> now. Hopefully, someone else will.
> In the meantime, it would be good to mention this in
> (Again, I'm not in position to do that right now....will try to
> remember later when online)
> > 2. At the point where the keyboard is being adjusted to the UTF-8 locale
> > the script of the non-graphical installer (expert installation chosen in
> > that specific case) hangs up the whole installation process. Only the
> > graphical expert installation oversteps that installation step
> > successively.
> > 3. This is quite an old bug, and I really wonder why noone complained
> > mentioning this one:
> > It is impossible to set up a server / router with this installer
> > containing more than one NIC, no matter if you chose graphical or
> > non-graphical installer:
> > In my personal example eth0 is connected to a highspeed modem. That's why
> > I chose automatic DHCP configuration for the first NIC.
> > Eth1 is configured staticallly by my own choice, that means DHCP with
> > fixed addresses for the server and the workstations.
> > The installer is incapable to handle more than one NIC, which is a mess!
> > For my personal usage that means that I am forced to completely ignore
> > the second NIC during the installation process. When installation is
> > complete I am forced to reconfigure the whole network part of my server /
> > router manually, i. e. using an ordinary editor.
> > This state is quite insufficient and thus unacceptable.
> This is by design, in order to keep the installer simple to use and
> not confusing to less experienced users. So, by design, the only
> configured interface is the one that's used for the installation of
> the machine.
> Users who want to configure more than one interface are indeed
> expected to be able to do it after the install, by the usual methods.
> We really don't want to have *any* owner of a modern laptop (that has
> two NICs) to be prompted for the setting of his|her two interfaces.
I cannot share that point of view:
Your point of view is fully OK for a standard install, no matter if console-
based or graphical, adressing rookies and beginners.
My point of view should fit for experienced users using the expert install, no
matter if graphical or console based.
But simplification in any case, and thus disregarding the different installer
levels with their different sophistication is a point of view or guide line
that I cannot and will not share at all...
> > An additional menu point to adjust /etc/apt/sources.list to one's own
> > personal needs would be very helpful as a part of such an installer.
> Here again, this is much out of scope of the installer. It is left to
> the post-install polishing of the installed machine, when the
> machine's admin is supposed to be skilled enough to know how to do
I prefare to avoid the usage of editors. Thus it would make sense to add an
additional point in the installer menu asking the user whether he wants to
perform a Debian Sid installation or rather one based on the testing branch
for which the installer was written: squeeze in this case.
Installers are here to simplify necessary tasks, NOT to complicate them....
It's quite humble to say "We don't want this and we don't want that" or "We
expect the user to be qualified enough to ......".
I would not define myself as subqualified. But I would highly prefer an
installer which is a bit more elegant and less buggy and complicated than the
Apart from that I do like Debian and I do recommend its usage to everyone that
is really open for Linux and open source.