F12 RC possible bug when windows pre installed???

[Gianluca Cecchi-2]

Hello,

just downloaded boot.iso (170Mb) from

http://ftp.tudelft.nl/download.fedora.redhat.com/linux/development/x86_64/os/images/boot.iso
with timestamp 07-Nov-2009 14:13 171M

My test system has a partition layout that comprehends 

sda1 ntfs with windows XP and set as bootable by windows xp itself

inside the winxp fs  I also have the copy of the first 512 bytes of sda4, to boot my F11 partition (with grub installed previously in root partition) from boot.ini of windows.

Now I have also sda2 that is scratchable.

I run the cd where I burnt the boot.iso and select sda2 as target partition and to install grub on root partition (so sda2)
This grub setup phase completes, but then I get an error about repositories not aligned with my install treee and I can only retry (with same failure) or reboot.
I reboot and I'm not able to start win xp anymore.

I start the same f12 cd in rescue and notice with fdisk that now  my sda has this

sda1 no bootable flag
sda2 bootable flag

so that I remove bootbale flag from sda2 and set bootable flag for sda1 and my windows XP starts again and also is able again to start my F11 from sda4

Is this a bug or does it depends on installation not finished?
Anyway I think we have to consider a possible error and the bootable flasg should not be removed from sda1.....

I copied these files and they are available to check

-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 57822 2009-11-07 18:32 anaconda.log
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 20840 2009-11-07 18:32 program.log
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 39602 2009-11-07 18:32 storage.log
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 32733 2009-11-07 18:32 X.log
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  1541 2009-11-07 18:32 yum.log

yum.log contains:

[2009-11-07 18:29:11,198] INFO_2  : Loaded plugins: blacklist, whiteout
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,205] WARNING : Excluding devel repo Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release for non-devel anaconda
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,206] WARNING : Repo Fedora - Rawhide - Debug contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,207] WARNING : Repo Fedora - Rawhide - Source contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,209] WARNING : Excluding devel repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 - Test Updates for non-devel anaconda
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,210] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 - Test Updates Debug contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,210] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - Test Updates Source contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,213] WARNING : Excluding devel repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 - Updates for non-devel anaconda
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,214] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 - Updates - Debug contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,214] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - Updates Source contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,217] WARNING : Excluding devel repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 for non-devel anaconda
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,218] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 - Debug contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,218] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - Source contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
[2009-11-07 18:29:11,219] DEBUG   : Config time: 0.404

Possible that it excludes all repositories?

Any hint, also for install?

Gianluca

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Adam Williamson-3]

On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 19:00 +0100, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:

>
> I copied these files and they are available to check
>
>
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 57822 2009-11-07 18:32 anaconda.log
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 20840 2009-11-07 18:32 program.log
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 39602 2009-11-07 18:32 storage.log
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 32733 2009-11-07 18:32 X.log
> -rw-r--r--. 1 root root  1541 2009-11-07 18:32 yum.log

Great - can you please file a bug, and attach all of them? Thanks.

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Adam Williamson-3]

On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 19:00 +0100, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:

> yum.log contains:
>
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,198] INFO_2  : Loaded plugins: blacklist,
> whiteout
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,205] WARNING : Excluding devel repo Fedora -
> Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release for
> non-devel anaconda
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,206] WARNING : Repo Fedora - Rawhide - Debug
> contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,207] WARNING : Repo Fedora - Rawhide - Source
> contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,209] WARNING : Excluding devel repo Fedora
> rawhide - x86_64 - Test Updates for non-devel anaconda
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,210] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 -
> Test Updates Debug contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,210] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - Test Updates
> Source contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,213] WARNING : Excluding devel repo Fedora
> rawhide - x86_64 - Updates for non-devel anaconda
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,214] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 -
> Updates - Debug contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,214] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - Updates
> Source contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,217] WARNING : Excluding devel repo Fedora
> rawhide - x86_64 for non-devel anaconda
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,218] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - x86_64 -
> Debug contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,218] WARNING : Repo Fedora rawhide - Source
> contains -source or -debuginfo, excluding
> [2009-11-07 18:29:11,219] DEBUG   : Config time: 0.404
>
> Possible that it excludes all repositories?

Does it say anything about repositories it *accepts*? Any other
repositories at all, F12 repos?

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Gianluca Cecchi-2]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@...> wrote:

Does it say anything about repositories it *accepts*? Any other
repositories at all, F12 repos?

No, what I wrote was all the contents of yum.log.
I opened bug 533658, so you can see all of them.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533658

Bye,
Gianluca

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Adam Williamson-3]

On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 08:14 +0100, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@...>
> wrote:
>        
>        
>        
>         Does it say anything about repositories it *accepts*? Any
>         other
>         repositories at all, F12 repos?
>        
>        
> No, what I wrote was all the contents of yum.log.
> I opened bug 533658, so you can see all of them.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533658

I talked to Jesse today, and apparently this is known. The problem is
that the installer is no longer tagged as a beta installer, so it
refuses to use Rawhide repos, but the 'F12' repos are currently Rawhide
repos, so there's nothing to install from. If I understand correctly, at
any rate. This will get magically fixed once the real F12 repos exist.

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Gianluca Cecchi-2]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@...> wrote:

I talked to Jesse today, and apparently this is known. The problem is
that the installer is no longer tagged as a beta installer, so it
refuses to use Rawhide repos, but the 'F12' repos are currently Rawhide
repos, so there's nothing to install from. If I understand correctly, at
any rate. This will get magically fixed once the real F12 repos exist.

I suspected something similar...
Does this mean that till F12 is released, the boot.iso image is not usable for install?
What would be another method without downloading all the DVD?
Gianluca

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Adam Williamson-3]

On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 08:39 +0100, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@...>
> wrote:
>        
>        
>        
>         I talked to Jesse today, and apparently this is known. The
>         problem is
>         that the installer is no longer tagged as a beta installer, so
>         it
>         refuses to use Rawhide repos, but the 'F12' repos are
>         currently Rawhide
>         repos, so there's nothing to install from. If I understand
>         correctly, at
>         any rate. This will get magically fixed once the real F12
>         repos exist.
>        
>        
>        
>        
>
> I suspected something similar...
> Does this mean that till F12 is released, the boot.iso image is not
> usable for install?

No, only till we have the Everything repo setup, which is when we are
confident we really have the final bits.

> What would be another method without downloading all the DVD?

nightly live?

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Antonio Olivares]

--- On Sat, 11/7/09, Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cecchi@...> wrote:

> From: Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cecchi@...>
> Subject: F12 RC possible bug when windows pre installed???
> To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases" <fedora-test-list@...>
> Date: Saturday, November 7, 2009, 10:00 AM
> Hello,just downloaded boot.iso (170Mb)
> from
>
> http://ftp.tudelft.nl/download.fedora.redhat.com/linux/development/x86_64/os/images/boot.iso
>
> with timestamp 07-Nov-2009 14:13  171M
>
> My test system has a partition layout that
> comprehends 
> sda1 ntfs with windows XP and set as bootable by
> windows xp itself
> inside the winxp fs  I also have the copy of
> the first 512 bytes of sda4, to boot my F11 partition (with
> grub installed previously in root partition) from boot.ini
> of windows.
>
>
>
> Now I have also sda2 that is
> scratchable.I run the cd where I burnt the
> boot.iso and select sda2 as target partition and to install
> grub on root partition (so sda2)
> This grub setup phase completes, but then I get an error
> about repositories not aligned with my install treee and I
> can only retry (with same failure) or reboot.
>
> I reboot and I'm not able to start win xp anymore.
>
> I start the same f12 cd in rescue and notice with fdisk
> that now  my sda has this
>
> sda1 no bootable flag
> sda2 bootable flag
>
> so that I remove bootbale flag from sda2 and set bootable
> flag for sda1 and my windows XP starts again and also is
> able again to start my F11 from sda4
>
>
> Is this a bug or does it depends on installation not
> finished?
> Anyway I think we have to consider a possible error and the
> bootable flasg should not be removed from sda1.....

I have noticed also, that Fedora install disks whether livecd's or RC candidates also seem to get the /boot/grub/grub.conf file wrong.  The linux partition gets properly setup, but the windows partition is wrong.  ie, the computer has a restore partition and it becomes the default leaving the other partition unbootable.  I solved it via

changing (hd0,0) to (hd0,1) and modifying the name one to windows and the other to rescue partition.  This is a heads up and IMO should be placed in the documentation.  It has happened to me at least 3 times and I apologize in advance for not making a bugzilla(time, work, other excuses, etc), found a workaround instead.  I trashed two windows installations because of this, but in the end I was happy to run Fedora.  

I know that it is *impossible* to setup a system in which all the possibilities are known, but there are some machines/many in fact that hace a restore partition and the installation of grub maps to it instead of the "normal" windows(C:\) partition.  

Thanks for reading this message.

Regards,

Antonio


     

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Adam Williamson-3]

On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 11:00 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote:

> I know that it is *impossible* to setup a system in which all the
> possibilities are known, but there are some machines/many in fact that
> hace a restore partition and the installation of grub maps to it
> instead of the "normal" windows(C:\) partition.  

Is this new behaviour in F12 or was it the same in F11? Can you _please_
file a bug, including an fdisk printout of a partition layout which
would trigger the bug? Thanks.

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Jesse Keating-3]

On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 23:27 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I talked to Jesse today, and apparently this is known. The problem is
> that the installer is no longer tagged as a beta installer, so it
> refuses to use Rawhide repos, but the 'F12' repos are currently Rawhide
> repos, so there's nothing to install from. If I understand correctly, at
> any rate. This will get magically fixed once the real F12 repos exist.

I was finally able to look at the bug and the logs and it's slightly
different than I originally thought.  This has to do with the version
string that is passed to the compose process for rawhide.  It gets
passed a version of "rawhide" so the yum repos it finds all have the
name "rawhide" in them.  When betanag is turned off in Anaconda, it will
refuse to use any "rawhide" like repo by default, thus you get no repos.
The only way to "fix" that is to pass a different version string during
the rawhide compose once we've turned off betanag.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating


--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Antonio Olivares]

--- On Sun, 11/8/09, Adam Williamson <awilliam@...> wrote:

> From: Adam Williamson <awilliam@...>
> Subject: Re: F12 RC possible bug when windows pre installed???
> To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases" <fedora-test-list@...>
> Cc: "Gianluca Cecchi" <gianluca.cecchi@...>
> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 11:27 AM
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 11:00 -0800,
> Antonio Olivares wrote:
>
> > I know that it is *impossible* to setup a system in
> which all the
> > possibilities are known, but there are some
> machines/many in fact that
> > hace a restore partition and the installation of grub
> maps to it
> > instead of the "normal" windows(C:\) partition. 
>
>
> Is this new behaviour in F12 or was it the same in F11?

It is eventually the same behavior :(, I have two Emachines ET-1105?  one running rawhide and another one running Fedora 11, and I had to do the same thing.  Will attach fdisk -l from machine tomorrow since I am not at work where the machine is at :(  

> Can
> you _please_
> file a bug, including an fdisk printout of a partition
> layout which
> would trigger the bug?

If I file a bug, may I ask against which component should I file against?
grub?  

> Thanks.
>
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT
> org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --

This is the first one that I encountered the so called bug:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-August/msg00565.html

It had as grub.conf

[root acer-aspire-1 ~]# cat /boot/grub/grub.conf
# grub.conf generated by anaconda
#
# Note that you do not have to rerun grub after making changes to this file
# NOTICE:  You have a /boot partition.  This means that
#          all kernel and initrd paths are relative to /boot/, eg.
#          root (hd0,2)
#          kernel /vmlinuz-version ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_aceraspire1-lv_root
#          initrd /initrd-version.img
#boot=/dev/sda
default=0
timeout=5
splashimage=(hd0,2)/grub/splash.xpm.gz
hiddenmenu
title Fedora (2.6.31-0.162.rc6.git2.fc12.i686)
        root (hd0,2)
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31-0.162.rc6.git2.fc12.i686 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_aceraspire1-lv_root acpi=off SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 LANG=en_US.UTF-8 KEYTABLE=us rd_plytheme=charge
        initrd /initrd-generic-2.6.31-0.162.rc6.git2.fc12.i686.img
title Fedora (2.6.31-0.125.rc5.git2.fc12.i686)
        root (hd0,2)
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31-0.125.rc5.git2.fc12.i686 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_aceraspire1-lv_root acpi=off
        initrd /initrd-2.6.31-0.125.rc5.git2.fc12.i686.img
title windows xp
        rootnoverify (hd0,0)
        chainloader +1

and I had to change it to

[root acer-aspire-1 ~]# cat /boot/grub/grub.conf
# grub.conf generated by anaconda
#
# Note that you do not have to rerun grub after making changes to this file
# NOTICE:  You have a /boot partition.  This means that
#          all kernel and initrd paths are relative to /boot/, eg.
#          root (hd0,2)
#          kernel /vmlinuz-version ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_aceraspire1-lv_root
#          initrd /initrd-version.img
#boot=/dev/sda
default=0
timeout=5
splashimage=(hd0,2)/grub/splash.xpm.gz
hiddenmenu
title Fedora (2.6.31-0.162.rc6.git2.fc12.i686)
        root (hd0,2)
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31-0.162.rc6.git2.fc12.i686 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_aceraspire1-lv_root acpi=off SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 LANG=en_US.UTF-8 KEYTABLE=us rd_plytheme=charge
        initrd /initrd-generic-2.6.31-0.162.rc6.git2.fc12.i686.img
title Fedora (2.6.31-0.125.rc5.git2.fc12.i686)
        root (hd0,2)
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31-0.125.rc5.git2.fc12.i686 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_aceraspire1-lv_root acpi=off
        initrd /initrd-2.6.31-0.125.rc5.git2.fc12.i686.img
title windows xp
        rootnoverify (hd0,1)
        chainloader +1
title Acer Restore
        rootnoverify (hd0,0)
        chainloader +1

Note the Acer Restore partition was hd0,0 and windows was (hd0,1).  It also happened to me with Fedora 11 install on Emachines 1105 machine :(.  The real "C:\ " Windows partition was not marked bootable so I had to modifiy it with cfdisk to bootable after I had to reinstall windows since I "did not know" that it was there and thought I had lost it because of the message that I got that the system was being reinstalled since I booted the acer rescue partition :(

Will try to follow up tomorrow with this.  

Regards,

Antonio


     

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Adam Williamson-3]

On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 12:50 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote:

> > Is this new behaviour in F12 or was it the same in F11?
>
> It is eventually the same behavior :(, I have two Emachines ET-1105?
> one running rawhide and another one running Fedora 11, and I had to do
> the same thing.  Will attach fdisk -l from machine tomorrow since I am
> not at work where the machine is at :(  

Thanks.

> > Can
> > you _please_
> > file a bug, including an fdisk printout of a partition
> > layout which
> > would trigger the bug?
>
> If I file a bug, may I ask against which component should I file against?
> grub?  

I think anaconda, as that's what actually does the grub installation. It
may turn out to be something else in the end, but let's start there...

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Antonio Olivares]

--- On Sun, 11/8/09, Adam Williamson <awilliam@...> wrote:

> From: Adam Williamson <awilliam@...>
> Subject: Re: F12 RC possible bug when windows pre installed???
> To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases" <fedora-test-list@...>
> Cc: "Gianluca Cecchi" <gianluca.cecchi@...>
> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 11:27 AM
> On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 11:00 -0800,
> Antonio Olivares wrote:
>
> > I know that it is *impossible* to setup a system in
> which all the
> > possibilities are known, but there are some
> machines/many in fact that
> > hace a restore partition and the installation of grub
> maps to it
> > instead of the "normal" windows(C:\) partition.
>
>
> Is this new behaviour in F12 or was it the same in F11? Can
> you _please_
> file a bug, including an fdisk printout of a partition
> layout which
> would trigger the bug? Thanks.
>
> --

I will try to reply to this message several times with the different layouts:  

Emachines Machine 1:

[root@n6355-ET1161-05 ~]# fdisk -l

Disk /dev/sda: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 19457 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x66f2e07a                    

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1               1        1306    10485760   27  Unknown
/dev/sda2            1306       14360   104857868    7  HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sda3   *       14361       14386      204800   83  Linux    
/dev/sda4           14387       19457    40732807+   5  Extended
/dev/sda5           14387       19457    40732672   8e  Linux LVM

Disk /dev/dm-0: 35.9 GB, 35852910592 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4358 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000                    

Disk /dev/dm-0 doesn't contain a valid partition table

Disk /dev/dm-1: 5855 MB, 5855248384 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 711 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x00000000                    

Disk /dev/dm-1 doesn't contain a valid partition table
[root@n6355-ET1161-05 ~]# cat /boot/grub/grub.conf
# grub.conf generated by anaconda                  
#                                                  
# Note that you do not have to rerun grub after making changes to this file
# NOTICE:  You have a /boot partition.  This means that                    
#          all kernel and initrd paths are relative to /boot/, eg.        
#          root (hd0,2)                                                    
#          kernel /vmlinuz-version ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_n6355et116105-lv_root
#          initrd /initrd-[generic-]version.img                                
#boot=/dev/sda                                                                
default=0                                                                      
timeout=5                                                                      
splashimage=(hd0,2)/grub/splash.xpm.gz                                        
hiddenmenu                                                                    
title Fedora (2.6.31.5-127.fc12.x86_64)                                        
        root (hd0,2)                                                          
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31.5-127.fc12.x86_64 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_n6355et116105-lv_root  LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYBOARDTYPE=pc KEYTABLE=us rhgb quiet                                                                
        initrd /initramfs-2.6.31.5-127.fc12.x86_64.img                          
title Fedora (2.6.31.5-117.fc12.x86_64)                                        
        root (hd0,2)                                                            
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31.5-117.fc12.x86_64 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_n6355et116105-lv_root  LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYBOARDTYPE=pc KEYTABLE=us rhgb quiet                                                                
        initrd /initramfs-2.6.31.5-117.fc12.x86_64.img                          
title Fedora (2.6.31.5-115.fc12.x86_64)                                        
        root (hd0,2)                                                            
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31.5-115.fc12.x86_64 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_n6355et116105-lv_root  LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYBOARDTYPE=pc KEYTABLE=us rhgb quiet
        initrd /initramfs-2.6.31.5-115.fc12.x86_64.img
title Fedora (2.6.31.5-96.fc12.x86_64)
        root (hd0,2)
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31.5-96.fc12.x86_64 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_n6355et116105-lv_root  LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYBOARDTYPE=pc KEYTABLE=us rhgb quiet
        initrd /initramfs-2.6.31.5-96.fc12.x86_64.img
title Fedora (2.6.31.1-56.fc12.x86_64)
        root (hd0,2)
        kernel /vmlinuz-2.6.31.1-56.fc12.x86_64 ro root=/dev/mapper/vg_n6355et116105-lv_root  LANG=en_US.UTF-8 SYSFONT=latarcyrheb-sun16 KEYBOARDTYPE=pc KEYTABLE=us rhgb quiet
        initrd /initramfs-2.6.31.1-56.fc12.x86_64.img
title windows
        rootnoverify (hd0,1)
        chainloader +1


Thanks,


Antonio


     

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Adam Williamson-3]

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 09:45 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote:

> > Is this new behaviour in F12 or was it the same in F11? Can
> > you _please_
> > file a bug, including an fdisk printout of a partition
> > layout which
> > would trigger the bug? Thanks.
> >
> > --
> I will try to reply to this message several times with the different layouts:  

A bug report would be far, far better. Thanks.

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Antonio Olivares]

----- Original Message ----
From: Adam Williamson <awilliam@...>
To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases <fedora-test-list@...>
Sent: Mon, November 9, 2009 11:57:06 AM
Subject: Re: F12 RC possible bug when windows pre installed???

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 09:45 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote:

> > Is this new behaviour in F12 or was it the same in F11? Can
> > you _please_
> > file a bug, including an fdisk printout of a partition
> > layout which
> > would trigger the bug? Thanks.
> >
> > --
> I will try to reply to this message several times with the different layouts: 

A bug report would be far, far better. Thanks.

Against which component? 

Thanks,

Antonio


     

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Adam Williamson-3]

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 16:27 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote:

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Adam Williamson <awilliam@...>
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases <fedora-test-list@...>
> Sent: Mon, November 9, 2009 11:57:06 AM
> Subject: Re: F12 RC possible bug when windows pre installed???
>
> On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 09:45 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote:
>
> > > Is this new behaviour in F12 or was it the same in F11? Can
> > > you _please_
> > > file a bug, including an fdisk printout of a partition
> > > layout which
> > > would trigger the bug? Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > I will try to reply to this message several times with the different layouts:  
>
> A bug report would be far, far better. Thanks.
>
> Against which component?  

anaconda, to start with.

--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Antonio Olivares]

> > A bug report would be far, far better. Thanks.
> >
> > Against which component? 
>
> anaconda, to start with.
>

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534066

But since
# fdisk -l
could very well be very different for *all cases*, the bug is marked as
 
Status:  CLOSED CANTFIX  
<quote>
Comment #1From Chris Lumens 2009-11-10 09:26:27 EDT -------
We can't fix this, because we do not have the information to make this kind of
decision.  The "System" column from your fdisk output above is not exported to
anaconda by parted/pyparted because it really only means something on the msdos
disk type, and that's what we'd require to make this decision.  In all other
ways, your first partition look exactly like a Windows partition so anaconda
believes it is one.  
</quote>
Can it be at least in the RELEASE NOTES, in case something like this happens? 
 
Regards,
 
Antonio


     

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list

[Gianluca Cecchi-2]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:10:46 -0800 (PST) Antonio Olivares wrote:
>> > A bug report would be far, far better. Thanks.
>> > 
>> > Against which component?  
>> 
>> anaconda, to start with.

>> 
>
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=534066
>
>But since 
># fdisk -l
>could very well be very different for *all cases*, the bug is marked as 

> 
> Status:  CLOSED CANTFIX  

I think the original problem I reported was different.
As in my bugzilla there were actually two problems, I opened a new bugzilla only for the partition problem one

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537155

Here we are not talking about "System" column, but about "Boot" column, that I hope is accessible by the installer, as it changes its values.... removing the bootable flag originally set.

Thanks for attention
Gianluca

--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@...
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list