On 10/25/06, Jim Cornette <fc-cornette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mine is a GX270 I'm just used to the shorthand we use around here :)
You may not experience the same issue as you have sata drives. Anaconda appears to have been confused by my thumb drive which was /dev/sda and my system IDE drive /dev/hda.
I'm not sure if the DHCP problems and slow yum dependency resolution are FC 6 problems yet. The DHCP issues could have been cause by my network and the yum slow response could just have been because the mirrors were saturated with folks downloading isos of FC6. I'll try another install before I file bugzilla reports.
Alastair Neil wrote:
>
> Well for the first time I can remember a Fedora release did not install
> properly on my plain old vanilla Dell Optiplex 270. I used a usb thumb
> drive to start the install.
Nooo .... I have a Dell Optiplex GX270 to upgrade. I had trouble going
from FC4 to FC5 via the installer so had to resort to other methods to
upgrade the system to FC5. I am not sure if a 270 and GX270 make any
difference with the outcome.
Mine is a GX270 I'm just used to the shorthand we use around here :)
>
> Installing the ata_piix driver module takes over a minute because of all
> the sata time out nonsense.
>
> After completing the install and rebooting grub was screwed up. the
> device.map was referencing (hd0) to /dev/sda instead of /dev/hda and on
> top of that the entries in the grub.conf were pointed to the wrong disks
> too (hd1,0), double whammy.
>
Thanks for the note: I'll check these items out before rebooting the
system, if the installer works this time for upgrading.
Grub seems to be more troublesome lately than I remember previously. The
double wrong steps are a bit alarming. I have two sata 80GB drives on
the system which are /dev/sda now. I better check before rebooting that
they did not change to /dev/hdx devices.
You may not experience the same issue as you have sata drives. Anaconda appears to have been confused by my thumb drive which was /dev/sda and my system IDE drive /dev/hda.
> DHCP seemed to take an age to pick up an ip address.
>
> The much vaunted improvements in yum dependency checks were not in
> evidence during the install when the initial dependency check took an
> age even though I had not customised anything.
>
> I surprised to see that there was no X configuration during first boot,
> and also surprised that it needed to reboot after first boot.
>
> Unpleasantly it then rebooted to a command line prompt - no X.
>
> I will try and file bugzilla reports on these tomorrow, however I'm
> pretty shocked. If I were a casual user and not a long time Fedora lag
> I'd run not walk from this distro.
>
Noted on the things to look out for.
Jim
I'm not sure if the DHCP problems and slow yum dependency resolution are FC 6 problems yet. The DHCP issues could have been cause by my network and the yum slow response could just have been because the mirrors were saturated with folks downloading isos of FC6. I'll try another install before I file bugzilla reports.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
