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

Bug#541823: installation-reports: Acer Aspire 3690

Hi Celejar,

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 10:04:00AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > 4)  I was unable to delete a LUKS encrypted disk that I had created on a
> > partition.  The installer refused to delete the partition since it was used by
> > the encrypted disk, but it also apparently offered no way to delete the
> > encrypted disk.
> That one also. Hopefully Max will look at it in details.

Yeah, that's a known missing feature in partman-crypto. It is
not possible to remove encrypted volumes right know. 

Tracked in Debian bug #381892.

> > 5)  The showstopper:  I installed the entire system (except for /boot) onto LVM
> > volumes in a vg on top of a LUKS volume created out of a primary partition.
> > When I rebooted, the system wouldn't bring up the LUKS volume.  The eventual
> > fix that worked is to add this line to /boot/grub/menu.lst:
> > 
> > # kopt=cryptopts=target=hda4_crypt,source=/dev/hda4,lvm=lizzie-root root=/dev/mapper/lizzie-root ro
> > 
> > This is:
> > 
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=492790
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=522041
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=507721
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=503062

Hmmm. This certainly *should* work.

Celejar, did you configure a label on the root filesystem, or 
remember setting anything unusual?

There are different issues that could lead to such symptoms,
as can be seen in the different bug reports you referenced, but 
(AFAICT) none of those should affect current installer builds.

It occurs to me that you might have hit a temporary problem we
had in daily builds after we switched to UUID by default. This
could lead to exactly those symptoms, and has since been fixed.

Any chance you could retry the installation with a current image
and try to reproduce it there? I do realize this may not be 
possible, but asking can't hurt. :-)

Otherwise I think we should assume this was caused by the problem
we already fixed - unless someone sees this with a current image.

Either way, thanks for sending in the installation report.


Reply to: