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

Re: Installer fails due to invalid signatures

reassign 573791 installation-reports
tag 573791 unreproducible needinfo

On Tuesday 16 March 2010, steve clark wrote:
> I sent a report to the debian bug reporting system (bug number 573791)
> but it seems to not have been taken serious, being shuffled between
> responsible owners.

I see it differently: you have an installation problem that nobody else is 
having and have not quite found the correct way to report it.

The reason your bug report was reassigned is that the original report had 
an incorrect syntax. So it is *not* being shuffled around; someone was 
merely trying to correct your incorrect initial reporting.
And please understand that reporting an issue incorrectly drastically 
increases the chance that it will be missed!

> Happens with other lives debian based systems (e.g. ubuntu 9.10 server)
> too.

Please report issues with Ubuntu installs to Ubuntu.

> I'm a novice Debian user (4 months), but have over 25 years across
> multiple systems and am a professional developer, so think I can
> recognise a must look at problem when I see one :)

In that case I would also expect you to recognize when a problem is so 
completely unlikely to escape the attention of the project publishing the 
software that it may well by an issue that's solely due to the 
inexperience of the user?
I can assure you that, if Lenny really was not installable, we would be 
flooded with reports. Fortunately that has not happened.

The fact that you consistently see the issue could also be explained by the 
fact that you're doing something consistently wrong maybe.

!! I have just tried an install using the 5.04 netinst and using the
!! ftp.uk.debian.org mirror without any problems.

There may have been a temporary problem with that particular mirror. If 
there was it appears to be solved now. Did you try different mirrors?

> I would further suggest that as it prevents any new installations of
> Debian since at least 11th March 2010, its serverity is a little higher
> than normal.

*If* the issue is confirmed to be a real issue *and* really affects all 
installations and not simply one isolated mirror, then yes. Until then a 
much more appropriate categorization is "unreproducible, needs additional 

Now, to try to solve your problem, assuming that you can still reproduce 
it, we will need additional information.

Please send us the syslog of a failed installation. You should be able to 
save it using the "Save debug logs" option in the main menu of the 
Please gzip the syslog before sending it and send your reply _only_ to 


Reply to: