Your message dated Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:46:57 -0400 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line closing old report 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; 6 Mar 2004 14:23:54 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 06 06:23:54 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from whn.adsl.spfdma.crocker.net (p.lopi.com) [159.250.21.67] by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1AzciY-0008AG-00; Sat, 06 Mar 2004 06:23:54 -0800 Received: (qmail 25391 invoked by uid 1001); 6 Mar 2004 14:23:52 -0000 From: Bill Nugent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: installation-reports: debian-installer beta2 (daily) March 5 Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 09:23:52 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_05 (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_03_05 X-Spam-Level: Package: installation-reports Severity: Important Tags: sarge INSTALL REPORT Debian-installer-version: Daily Build 5-Mar-2004 downloaded from http://gluck.debian.org/cdimage/testing/netinst/i386/daily/ uname -a: <The result of running uname -a on a shell prompt> Method: netinst 108MB CD image Machine: Old Compaq computer Processor: 200 MHz Pentium or some such Memory: 128MB Root Device: IDE /dev/hda Root Size/partition table: /dev/hda1 /boot 128MB reiserfs /dev/hda2 swp 512MB /dev/hda5 / 3.3GB (Balance of 4GB Disk) reiserfs Output of lspci: Not available -- system panic's on boot Base System Installation Checklist: Initial boot worked: [O] Configure network HW: [O] Config network: [O] Detect CD: [O] Load installer modules: [O] Detect hard drives: [O] Partition hard drives: [O] Create file systems: [O] Mount partitions: [O] Install base system: [O] Install boot loader: [O] Reboot: [O] [O] = OK, [E] = Error (please elaborate below), [ ] = didn't try it Comments/Problems: Here is my report on installing with reiser after last night's failed attempt at using xfs. Some comments: During the installation the partitioning of the disk(s) is more complicated and/or difficult that it should be. There are several different methods on the netinst disk and most of them are a pain to use and get in the way. Both times I used the menu item "Configure and mount partitions" and this was easy to get the configuration I wanted. The only problem is it apparently does not tell the installation process that the disk(s) have been configured so every time I finish a step the installer wants me to partition the disks! Reboot went well except for fsck.reiserfs was not found. fsck.reiserfs was not found during the boot up. Grub was the boot manager choosen during the installation process but during the post-install LILO was installed -- why? Luckily it wasn't installed. I'm guessing you've heard this a million times so I'll add my voice: why isn't the 2.6 kernel installed? It is more important to me to have sarge have a modern kernel rather than the old 2.4 kernel which is about to join 2.2 in maintenance mode. I really hope the when sarge is made the stable release it will be based on the 2.6 kernel -- even if this results in an additional delay. I hope this feedback is useful and I've filled in all the proper information in a meaningful way. If not, please let me know the correct way. TIA, Bill --------------------------------------- Received: (at 236499-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Jul 2004 19:54:03 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 05 12:54:02 2004 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix) by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1BhZXO-0007ij-00; Mon, 05 Jul 2004 12:54:02 -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 90AC618D8D for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 19:50:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: by dragon.kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 47BE46EE95; Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:46:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 14:46:57 -0400 From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: closing old report Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KsGdsel6WgEHnImy" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All reported issues are fixed. --=20 see shy jo --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy 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) iD8DBQFA6aIgd8HHehbQuO8RApY5AKCCssAmxKxtBQheUQeHo6jtrUPw9QCg2Uxp KOwiPvhCeVJTpRGF9hUYyzA= =N/Nk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --KsGdsel6WgEHnImy-- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]