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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
