On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 21:49:35 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > > Just out of interest (and I could have spared myself this test) > > You could start by sparing yourself this comment, sir. You may want to revisit the subject you've chosen: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine? What answer did you hope for? A definite "yes" or "no"? Or "it depends". Sure. I could have ignored the entire thread, but I've chosen to comment on this thread, because to the best of my knowledge, the installer doesn't care whether an existing installation of F25 is found. Failure reasons may be completely independent of whether you're trying to install a second F25 or F26 or RHEL or even another distribution that would not be happy about what target partitions you point it at or what is left to work with. You really need to narrow down the target environment and installation scenario. > , I've done > > another F25 installation (from Workstation x86_64 live image) to a machine > > that can boot F25, F24, F22 and some other distributions already. LVM, ext4 > > and LUKS involved. I've asked for manual partitioning and haven't run into > > any issues. > > Good for you. When I tried it, I ran into issues, which is why I am here > asking the list for their experiences. The information you are giving me > right here is no more precise and detailed than what I gave earlier. Of course not. I haven't run into any issues. Not this time, and not the many times I've done installations like that before with varying configurations since the Second World War. The much more interesting case is the failure case. Your failure case, and your installation scenario. Hence the initial questions about what steps _you_ have tried. > How much free space did you have? Irrelevant for this case. All that matters is what you have tried and whether you've reused/reformatted existing partitions, whether you've tried to allocate something from free space manually or automatically. Details like that. > I mentioned somewhere that on one machine > _each_ install took 40 min. to finish the initial fsck! How long was > yours? Not noticable. There is no huge storage fs available to this machine directly, and accessing the local LUKS storage didn't involve any annoying delay. FWIW, I am also not in the know with regard to any forced fsck the current installer version may run, and as much as you seem to like throwing in irrelevant issues you consider "awkward", it isn't helpful in this case. The fsck is an entirely different issue. > These are some of the problems I ran into. But you did not have > any issues. Good for you. Which is not why I've pointed that out. Nobody (me included) doubts that you're facing problems with whatever you're trying to do with the installer and your machine's storage configuration. Nevertheless, it's you who needs to find the culprit or collect enough data and logs for installer developers to take a look at. If you came to bugzilla with empty hands, it would not be any different. > >>>> Is there a lot of censorship on this list too? > >>> > >>> That's an irrational comment. > >> > >> No, that's a question. I am new to the list and would like to know if it > >> works efficiently or it is a wasteland of egos like most of the > >> internet. > > > > That's another irrational comment. I highly recommend you don't flee into > > more such off-topic comments. > > I recommend the same for you, sir. My questions about $subject have not been off-topic. > And I recommend you desist from > making personal recommendations to any user on this list. Can't do that, won't do that. You are new to this list, and still you don't make your own experience on this list, but mention your bad experience made in other places. It _is_ irrational to start rambling about "censorship" and "wasteland of egos like most of the internet", and it doesn't help you with your installation problem at all. > >> because I would have to reinstall yet again. > >> But all you know is that I have tried manual installation and failed. > > > > Seriously? You wrote: > > > > | Also note that "manual" does not seem to be very manual after all. > > | In previous more complicated installs it chooses put new partitions > > | in seemingly arbitrary empty spaces like LVMs. > > > > ??? > > > > You are right there is a typo: add "to" after chooses: "chooses put" > should be "chooses to put". Is it clear now? No. The typo is unimportant. You've started with free space and have asked the installer to creation something _automatically_? Or have you tried to create a partition manually and whatever space the installer allocated, wasn't a good working way? > >> Thus your contribution so far sounds like an ad hominem. ;-) > > > > Talk is cheap. > > Look, you chose to offend a new user you don't even know just because he > criticized some aspect of the product in question without having enough > evidence to convict. A false impression. Can't do anything about you feeling offended (and some people are offended much too easily), but as I'm not a developer of this installer, I don't care about the criticism. I'm only interested in the topic, I'm free to post to the list, and if that troubles you, you may ignore me. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
