Thanks for responding. Trimed down to things to reply to...
On 12/27/2013 02:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-25 at 18:11 -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
If I selected my local repo, Updates became not an option. Regardless if
I used the DVD install (i386 and x86_64) or the netinstal (only tried
x86_64), consistantly this became greyed out. I could not provide the
URL for where I have my local updates repo. It did not matter if I added
repo=url to the boot line, or did it in the GUI. The moment I selected
my own http URL, I lost updates.
With the interactive install, I believe anaconda doesn't expect you to
pass multiple repos; it's expecting either a (single) actual yum package
repository, or a mirror tree with a .treeinfo file specifying the
location of the standard repo set.
First is there a way to specify the updates repo on the boot line. There
was (I believe) back on F17. Or maybe I am just suffering from a senior
moment.
Where are there instructions for making a .treeinfo file and can I
specify it in the repo=url boot parameter?
With a kickstart you can specify multiple separate repos, I think. But I haven't really poked into this
behaviour much since newUI.
My 'practice' is to first get an install working, then use the
anaconda.cfg to build a kickstart file. So here I am, not getting to 1st
base. I almost discourage you from poking around. I feel it is a real
dumb down, and very saddening. Particularly that I can not customize
what apps and groups to install or not. Just a large general catagory.
As far as adding repo= to the boot line, i386 and x86_64 work
differently! But I suspect you know that. tab with i386 and 'e' with
x86_64.
Um. What? Oh. The boot menu. I think you more likely saw live vs.
non-live rather than x86_64 vs. i386. They're built a bit differently.
But I can't say I've bothered looking into it that closely either.
ctrl-X vs. F10 to actually boot once you've edited it is
similar...sometimes one works, sometimes the other, sometimes both. I
just file it under 'not sufficiently serious that I have time for it' at
present, sadly.
No absolutely I downloaded the full DVD and netinstal isos (I use wget,
so I know the exact url I download). Never touched the live isos.
But like you said: 'not sufficiently serious'; once I understood what
was happening, I worked with the hand dealt.
Sometimes when I selected LVM for the partitioning, the LVM partition
name would be 'fedora_19'. I left it like that in this install that
finally worked and here is what df has to say for itself:
$ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/fedora_19-root 29G 4.8G 23G 18% /
devtmpfs 1.3G 0 1.3G 0% /dev
tmpfs 1.3G 164K 1.3G 1% /dev/shm
tmpfs 1.3G 1016K 1.3G 1% /run
tmpfs 1.3G 0 1.3G 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
tmpfs 1.3G 44K 1.3G 1% /tmp
/dev/sda1 477M 96M 352M 22% /boot
/dev/mapper/fedora_19-home 257G 32G 212G 14% /home
Some times it used the host name. Depended on what steps I took to get
to setting up the LVM partition.
It's probably re-using the existing VG rather than blowing it away and
creating a new one, the '19' rather suggests that.
On a new, empty, SSD drive from Crucial or a old drive that had f17 on
it? Never installed f19 here. I think the disk druid developers need
to search their code for some label they did not change.
In summary of what is important:
Why have my installs to the SSD failed (writing bootloader).
It is absolutely impossible to tell without at least program.log. It's
kind of annoying that all cases of bootloader install failing on UEFI
install keep getting written off as dupes of 1006304, because when
they're marked as dupes we don't get logs, and there's just no way to
know what's going on. I've posted a couple of comments asking if
anaconda and libreport devs can figure that out, but nothing doing yet.
If you have a copy of program.log (and ideally all the other logs...)
from one of those failures, we could try and figure it out.
Instructions on generating (or capturing) the logs? I would be glad to
try. Though I am thinking of building a netinstal USB stick and seeing
if there are timing problems with the USB DVD drive. The observed
symptom is the drive starts up (it had been off during the post install
process) and a spinning wait object is going on the screen. After some
time (minute or so?) I get the error.
I really want to be running on the SSD card before my next bit of travel
(IEEE 802 meeting Jan 19 in LA).
thanks for your time.
--
test mailing list
test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
