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

Re: debian-installer: partman, limited; base-install failed, grave error?

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joey Hess" <joeyh@debian.org>
> To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re: debian-installer: partman, limited; base-install failed,
grave error?
> Leif W wrote:
> > Initially I tried expert mode, as I'm an experienced user.  I've
> > successfully installing various flavors of Linux since 1997, and
Debian since
> > 2001.  :-)
> But apparently, you have never seen or paid attention to the standard
> output of debootstrap before:

On the contrary.  APPARENTLY I have never had a problem with debian
installs, and don't frivolously reinstall systems which are already
installed and working properrly.

> > Anyways, there are also several error messages about package
> > failures, packages failing to install because a required package has
not been
> > installed.  The very first error I see is dpkg install of
base-passwd, which
> > complains that libc6 is not installed.  Yet the dependencies are
ignored.  I
> > am not sure if this is normal just to get things going, or how to
> > the first error which I should worry about.  In this example, libc6
seems to
> > be installed later on (according to messages), so probably nothing
to worry
> > about.

> Anyone who has ever run debootstrap or watched console 3 in any debian
> install in the past 3 years should be familiar with the various
> contortions debootstrap goes through to bootstrap a system, which
> generates the above messages. Indeed anyone who has ever dist-upgraded
> debian system should be familiar with apt-get doing similar things in
> certian cases.

Anyone who has used one of the recent installers knows that next to
nothing is output on console three, as /var/log/messages, to which I
refered, multiple times, is output on console 4, as I read in the

> > I am not sure what to look for in the syslog or messages files. Near
> > beginning of the install, I skip the "load drivers from disk", as
there are no
> > esoteric devices in this machine, and ide-related modules are
reported as
> > "missing" (ide-mod, ide-probemod, ide-detect, ide-generic,
> > ide-disk, ide-cd, isofs).

> The complete message you were shown included this text:
> Linux kernel modules needed to drive some of your hardware are not
> available yet. Simply proceeding with the install may make these
> modules available later.

That is a message output to the screen, not /var/log/messages.  Perhaps
it should have been included.

> This informational message is only shown in expert mode, and we expect
> "experts" to have a modicum of reading comprehension capability.

I do, but apparently you do not.  As I stated, even after proceeding,
several times, the same modules were not installed.

> > Errors were encountered while processing:
> >  libgnutls11

> This would appear to be the problem. It's a pity that in all your
> volimumous information, ranting, and insults you left out the actual
> error message from earlier in the log that would tell us what the
> problem really is, and did not provide enough information to let
> reproduce your problem.

Um, this was the actual error message, and you also assume that this is
the likely problem (as I had guessed).  Most of the other information
described what I was doing as a user, which would be required to
reproduce the problem.  If you had read "How to Report Bugs
Effectively", as is suggested on the Debian site, it suggests erring on
the side of more information rather than less, and making the
distinction between speculation or commentary, and observations or
symptoms.  I provided plenty of everything.  Perhaps I could reduce the
commentary.  But it's ultimately an exercise for the reader to pick out
the facts and ignore the rest if they wish.

> You didn't tell us what version of Debian you
> were installing, what mirror you used to install from, or what version
> of the installer you used.

If you had actually read the email, I clearly stated, using UNSTABLE
installer 20040715 installing UNSTABLE from the default location, which
you should know is ftp.us.debian.org.  These were apparently symlinks to
.../dists/sarge and .../installer-i386/current at the time I downloaded,
which you should also have known, if you were such an expert yourself.

> Indeed you didn't even file a proper
> installation report in the standard format as explained on our web

Where is it?  If the site were a bit less cumbersome, perhaps I would
have found it before giving up.  Indeed, since it was apparent that I do
njot know about any special format, it would have been considerate to
inform me of the location instead of pass off more abusive commentary.

> or send your report to the right place,

Again, if the site were a bit less awkward and cumbersome, perhaps I
would have found the right place.  Be that as it may, you could have
informaed me of the correct place instead of being so smug and elitist.

>  so it's only happenstance that anyone who can help you saw your
problem at all.

Heh, help he calls it.  It added next to no value to the discussion:
requested no further information from me, supplied no further
information to me, and supplied no redirects to documentation for more
appripriate forums and formats.  Didn't even drop a name so I can't even
use google to site-search debian.org for the phrases.

> At a guess this was caused by breakage in debootstrap 0.2.41, which
> would only affect those installing unstable instead of testing, and
> which should be fixed today.

Ahh, well, I'll try again today.

By the way, does expert mode mean that I should expect a broken install,
and magically know the current format of the installation process, and
rebuild my own boot floppy entirely in binary using nothing more than
the shell, dd and echo (in the extreme case)?  IMO, an installer doesn't
work and provides only marginal value if you have to do things by hand.


> -- 
> see shy jo

Reply to: