Re: DVD
Thank. It seems that /dev/dvd is erased at each boot. By the way, it does not change anything. It seems that there is a decoder issue. vlc says: VLC media player 3.0.0-git Vetinari (revision 2.2.0-git-9451-g55835f1) [pdupre@Sappho ~]$ [559de45d6108] core libvlc: Running vlc with the default interface. Use 'cvlc' to use vlc without interface. libdvdnav: Using dvdnav version 5.0.3 libdvdread: Encrypted DVD support unavailable. libdvdnav: DVD Title: Roublev libdvdnav: DVD Serial Number: 3f438aa6 libdvdnav: DVD Title (Alternative): libdvdnav: DVD disk reports itself with Region mask 0x00fd. Regions: 2 libdvdnav: Language 'en' not found, using 'fr' instead libdvdnav: Menu Languages available: fr [7f52f4183448] core decoder error: buffer deadlock prevented [7f52f41b1e68] core decoder error: buffer deadlock prevented libdvdnav: Language 'en' not found, using 'fr' instead -- gnome-player gives: GMLIB-Message: after init: position=0.000 length=0.000 start_time=0.000 run_time=0.000 volume=0.00 player=dead media=unknown uri= (gnome-mplayer:4530): GLib-CRITICAL **: g_str_has_prefix: assertion 'str != NULL' failed (gnome-mplayer:4530): Gtk-WARNING **: Allocating size to GtkAlignment 0x200b580 without calling gtk_widget_get_preferred_width/height(). How does the code know the size to allocate? totem gives: ibdvdread: Encrypted DVD support unavailable. libdvdread: Attempting to use device /dev/sr0 mounted on /run/media/pdupre/ROUBLEV for CSS authentication libdvdnav: Using dvdnav version 5.0.3 libdvdread: Encrypted DVD support unavailable. libdvdread: Attempting to use device /dev/sr0 mounted on /run/media/pdupre/ROUBLEV for CSS authentication libdvdnav: Can't read name block. Probably not a DVD-ROM device. libdvdnav: vm: dvd_read_name failed libdvdnav: DVD disk reports itself with Region mask 0x00fd. Regions: 2 libdvdnav: Language 'en' not found, using 'fr' instead libdvdnav: Menu Languages available: fr libdvdnav: Language 'en' not found, using 'fr' instead libdvdnav: Menu Languages available: fr libdvdnav: Language 'en' not found, using 'fr' instead libdvdnav: Menu Languages available: fr libdvdnav: Language 'en' not found, using 'fr' instead libdvdnav: Menu Languages available: fr ** Message: Missing plugin: gstreamer|1.0|totem|DVD subpicture decoder|decoder-subpicture/x-dvd (DVD subpicture decoder) ** Message: Missing plugin: gstreamer|1.0|totem|DVD subpicture decoder|decoder-subpicture/x-dvd (DVD subpicture decoder) (totem:4880): Gtk-WARNING **: Drawing a gadget with negative dimensions. Did you forget to allocate a size? (node slider owner GtkScale) === Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | | Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale | | Tel. (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12 | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44 189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France === > Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 at 2:05 AM > From: "Kevin Cummings" > To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org > Subject: Re: DVD > > On 12/31/16 15:38, Patrick Dupre wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I cannot rad DVD on my laptop;* > > Here are the sort of mesages that get: > > > > Gnome MPlayer Error: couldn't open DVD device: /dev/dvd (No suchfile or > > directory) > > DVD subpicture decoder, DVD subpicture decoder are required to play the > > file, but are not installed > > FAILED - Could not access dvdcdrom: /dev/dvd > > gxine: > > Either create a symbolic link /dev/dvd pointing to your cdrom device or set > > cdrom device in the preferences dialog > > If you are using the ise-cd module ensure that you have the following entry > > in /etc/modules: > > options ide-cd dma=1 > > Reload ide-cd module. > > Otherwise run hdparm -d 1 on your dvd-device > > > > > > /dev/sr0 on /run/media/pdupre/ROUBLEV type udf > > (ro,nosuid,nodev,relatime,uid=1000,gid=1000,iocharset=utf8,uhelper=udisks2) > > Do you have a /dev/dvd device in your /dev directory? And if so, is it > a symlink to /dev/sr0 (or just sr0)? If you have no /dev/dvd, can you > create one: ln -s /dev/sr0 /dev/dvd > > One of my computers has a /dev/cdrom which is a symlink to /dev/sr0, but > none of my computers seem to have a /dev/dvd at all. > > > The only thing that I can do is to view the file: > > /run/media/pdupre/ROUBLEV/VIDEO_TS/VIDEO_TS.VOB > > > > WHich shouldme access to the rest of the DVD, but then I get an error > > message: > > cannot find ... > > Can you override the /dev/dvd device in whatever software you are trying > to use to instead use /dev/sr0? > > > Any idea? > > > > Thank. > > > > === > > Patrick DUPRÉ | |
Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root partition. The only difference compared with the first successful install is that there is a bit less disk free space, and of course another F25 already installed. Previous install was about 20GB in 60GB free space. Current failed attempt is also 20GB in remaining 35GB space. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: DVD
On 01/01/2017 01:07 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote: It seems that /dev/dvd is erased at each boot. /dev is a tmpfs libdvdread: Encrypted DVD support unavailable. You need libdvdcss from livna. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: DVD
OK, Very good. Thank === Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | | Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale | | Tel. (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12 | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44 189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France === > Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2017 at 10:11 AM > From: "Samuel Sieb" > To: "Community support for Fedora users" > Subject: Re: DVD > > On 01/01/2017 01:07 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote: > > It seems that /dev/dvd is erased at each boot. > > > /dev is a tmpfs > > > libdvdread: Encrypted DVD support unavailable. > > You need libdvdcss from livna. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the > installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root > partition. > > The only difference compared with the first successful install is that > there is a bit less disk free space, and of course another F25 already > installed. Previous install was about 20GB in 60GB free space. Current > failed attempt is also 20GB in remaining 35GB space. Which installation mode have you tried? Automatic partitioning or manual partitioning setup? ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 12:42, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >> partition. >> >> The only difference compared with the first successful install is that >> there is a bit less disk free space, and of course another F25 already >> installed. Previous install was about 20GB in 60GB free space. Current >> failed attempt is also 20GB in remaining 35GB space. > > Which installation mode have you tried? Automatic partitioning or manual > partitioning setup? Always manual. 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. And when it refuses to carry out my indications it does not give detailed reasons why, just a generic can't do it. Very frustrating. I have not figured out how to manually choose a partition myself. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 13:01:03 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > > Which installation mode have you tried? Automatic partitioning or manual > > partitioning setup? > > Always manual. > > Also note that "manual" does not seem to be very manual after all. Better not comment on it before you are familiar with it. ;-) If you've really entered the manual partitioning setup, you can choose individual partitions, their mount points and reformatting option yourself. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 15:07, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 13:01:03 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >>> Which installation mode have you tried? Automatic partitioning or manual >>> partitioning setup? >> >> Always manual. >> >> Also note that "manual" does not seem to be very manual after all. > > Better not comment on it before you are familiar with it. ;-) > If you've really entered the manual partitioning setup, you can choose > individual partitions, their mount points and reformatting option > yourself. I tried that many times. Sometimes it works sometimes not. Very frustrating. Why not comment? We should make light not darkness. Is there a lot of censorship on this list too? Just preface everything with IMHO and you're all set. IMHO. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 15:17:43 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > > Better not comment on it before you are familiar with it. ;-) > > If you've really entered the manual partitioning setup, you can choose > > individual partitions, their mount points and reformatting option > > yourself. > > I tried that many times. Sometimes it works sometimes not. Very frustrating. > > Why not comment? We should make light not darkness. Then how about explaining in detail what exactly you've tried? If you tell the installer which existing partition or LV to use for the root fs, the installer doesn't override your decision. Unless you ask the installer to do automatic partitioning. > Is there a lot of censorship on this list too? That's an irrational comment. > Just preface everything with IMHO and > you're all set. IMHO. Don't let your frustration pile up so quickly. Try again, take notes of the steps and give a more detailed description of what you've tried. I do manual installs of Fedora alongside existing installations often, and your description so far sounds like PEBKAC. ;-) ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
koji : Kerberos authentication failed: No credentials cache found ??
I'm experimenting with some patches to thunderbird, and trying to build it on koji. But no joy : koji build --scratch --repo-id=24 --arch-override=x86_64 target ./thunderbird-45.5.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Kerberos authentication failed: No credentials cache found (-1765328189) I've run fedora-packager-setup successfully: fedora-packager-setup -w Setting up Fedora packager environment Saved: /home/sean/.fedora-server-ca.cert Setting up Browser Certificates Enter Export Password: Verifying - Enter Export Password: Browser certificate exported to ~/fedora-browser-cert.p12 What am I missing ? sean ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 15:31, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 15:17:43 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >>> Better not comment on it before you are familiar with it. ;-) >>> If you've really entered the manual partitioning setup, you can choose >>> individual partitions, their mount points and reformatting option >>> yourself. >> >> I tried that many times. Sometimes it works sometimes not. Very frustrating. >> >> Why not comment? We should make light not darkness. > > Then how about explaining in detail what exactly you've tried? If you > tell the installer which existing partition or LV to use for the root fs, > the installer doesn't override your decision. Unless you ask the installer > to do automatic partitioning. I have tried that very thing many times. It seems to fail in complicated situations. And it never gives much of a diagnostic message beyond "your configuration cannot be implemented" or some such. I'll try to repeat those experiments and give details, starting tomorrow, if I can. > >> 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. Can anyone express opinions here without being shot at? I sure hope so. In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? > >> Just preface everything with IMHO and >> you're all set. IMHO. > > Don't let your frustration pile up so quickly. Try again, take notes > of the steps and give a more detailed description of what you've tried. > I do manual installs of Fedora alongside existing installations often, I have also done many installs of other distros in mixed environments. > and your description so far sounds like PEBKAC. ;-) I might accept that as your own opinion if you knew the actual details, which I have not given yet, because I would have to reinstall yet again. But all you know is that I have tried manual installation and failed. Thus your contribution so far sounds like an ad hominem. ;-) > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 16:15 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > > 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. Can anyone express opinions here without being shot at? I sure > hope so. In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? The list policies and archives are both online, so you can verify that moderators have a very light hand and only intervene if things degenerate to personal insults, which is rare. Plenty of us disagree about plenty of things, but you'll find that people are helpful when you give enough relevant information. Saying "the installer is awkward" is not information, it's an opinion and tells us nothing except that you had a problem with it. I also had a problem with it about 3 years ago but was very explicit about what was happening and no-one shot me down. poc ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
> > > >> 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. Can anyone express opinions here without being shot at? I sure > hope so. In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? > This is a very helpful list, perhaps the most (along with openbox and R-help) that I have membership too, People are different, of course, some respondents are caustic but helpful, some are very gentle and so, some others caustic and unhelpful and some others gentle and unhelpful. Of course, the same goes for questioners also. Some wanting to learn and some do not even bother acknowledging if their problem was solved or not. Of course, it does not help at all when they do not provide any details and expect people wanting to help to divine their issues and some even get very cross when asked otherwise. We don't often recognize that these are volunteers and helping to the best of their ability and resources (mostly time) that are in short supply. But overall, a very friendly and helpful list with people willing to take the time. I learnt linux exclusively here, though I had used linux (RH and SuSE) predating Fedora. > I might accept that as your own opinion if you knew the actual details, > which I have not given yet, because I would have to reinstall yet again. > But all you know is that I have tried manual installation and failed. > Thus your contribution so far sounds like an ad hominem. ;-) See above. Note also, that the written word is not always the same as in contextual conversation, so with that I would not be quick to judge. Ranjan ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 16:30, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Sun, 2017-01-01 at 16:15 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >>> 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. Can anyone express opinions here without being shot at? I sure >> hope so. In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? > > The list policies and archives are both online, so you can verify that > moderators have a very light hand and only intervene if things > degenerate to personal insults, which is rare. Plenty of us disagree > about plenty of things, but you'll find that people are helpful when > you give enough relevant information. Thank you for answering, that is useful. Saying "the installer is awkward" > is not information, it's an opinion and tells us nothing except that > you had a problem with it. In the context of this discussion it is a useful information to say "the installer is awkward" because it shows where I am coming from. In the last 24 hours, as you can read in the last few posts, I have discovered (and it is still work in progress) that: 1. The installer takes 40 minutes before it can even get going on my machine, due to improper fscking. A bug. In the same last 24 hour I installed Mint and Rosalinux on the same machine in 15 min. total each. 2. If you include /boot inside LVM it works, but the second F25 install erases all previous installs from boot menu. 3. If you already have one other LVM install with some free space, the new one forcibly grabs that free space. 4. If empty space is too low, according to unfathomable and varying criteria (at one point I had 35GB free) it fails. 5. All the above failures without so much as a: Sorry mate, I tried making a 10GB root partition inside /dev/sdb17 but could not because there are only 8GB available. Instead I get something like: Your configuration does not work, bud. 6. Etc. So when I try to address other issues it is more efficient and descriptive to not repeat the whole thing every time and just summarize with "the installer is awkward". It is the context which gives meaning to the words. I also had a problem with it about 3 years > ago but was very explicit about what was happening and no-one shot me > down. Thank you, that is very useful. It's the first admission that some problems existed at least in the past. > > poc > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 16:41, Ranjan Maitra wrote: >>> 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. Can anyone express opinions here without being shot at? I sure >> hope so. In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? >> > > This is a very helpful list, perhaps the most (along with openbox and R-help) > that I have membership too, People are different, of course, some respondents > are caustic but helpful, some are very gentle and so, some others caustic and > unhelpful and some others gentle and unhelpful. > > Of course, the same goes for questioners also. Some wanting to learn and some > do not even bother acknowledging if their problem was solved or not. Of > course, it does not help at all when they do not provide any details and > expect people wanting to help to divine their issues and some even get very > cross when asked otherwise. > > We don't often recognize that these are volunteers and helping to the best of > their ability and resources (mostly time) that are in short supply. > > But overall, a very friendly and helpful list with people willing to take the > time. I learnt linux exclusively here, though I had used linux (RH and SuSE) > predating Fedora. > > >> I might accept that as your own opinion if you knew the actual details, >> which I have not given yet, because I would have to reinstall yet again. >> But all you know is that I have tried manual installation and failed. >> Thus your contribution so far sounds like an ad hominem. ;-) > > See above. Note also, that the written word is not always the same as in > contextual conversation, so with that I would not be quick to judge. I agree, that's exactly what I said in my last post 1 minute ago. Also, if you read the whole quote, you'll see that it was not me who was quick to judge. Going for coffee. I'll be back in an hour. > > Ranjan > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: koji : Kerberos authentication failed: No credentials cache found ??
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:07:42AM -0500, sean darcy wrote: > I'm experimenting with some patches to thunderbird, and trying to > build it on koji. But no joy : [...] > Browser certificate exported to ~/fedora-browser-cert.p12 See this message: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JK267PSDD53I2KGONDLFA5D4JWYXKZTQ/ "Packagers - Flag day 2016 Important changes" and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Kerberos In short: we switched from cert-based auth to kerberos auth. Make sure your system is up to date with the latest packager tools, and then run `kinit @FEDORAPROJECT.ORG`. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the > installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root > partition. This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not surprised to hear it doesn't. Can I ask what you are aiming to accomplish with this? There might be a better way — virtualization or containers, perhaps. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 17:23, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >> partition. > > This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — > and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. So, > while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not > surprised to hear it doesn't. I tested about 10 F25 installs yesterday, plus 2 Rosalinux R8 and 2 Mint 18, on an old server with 2GB RAM and a new laptop with 12GB RAM. All 3 OS' had to deal with previous installed versions of the same, except a couple of cases where I restarted from an empty disk. Only the F25's gave me problems on both boxes and in different independent ways. An interesting behavior, as I explained a few posts ago, happens when you install a second or a third F25, all in the standard LVM device configuration. They seem to work ok, though there no indication on the grub menu which one you are running. The problem appears when you install a new F25 with the /boot partition _inside_ the LVM container, which seems to work. Except, upon reboot the others are gone! Also I tried my preferred configuration: Btrfs RAID1 over LVM, which should give the best of both worlds: awesome scrub autorepair and proper pooling of same disk spare partitions! The installer barks. It seems to think that If I want to use Btrfs as a raid fs I also have to use it as a volume manager. According the the Fedora info mentioned a few posts back this should only cost a slight, not consistent as somebody said, performance hit. Is is true that the installer cannot put a Btrfs fs on a LVM partition? I could have missed something. > > Can I ask what you are aiming to accomplish with this? There might be a > better way — virtualization or containers, perhaps. > I have a remote customer with an old server with a Rosalinux and Mes5 on top of a 2x2TB ext4 over raid. I cannot easily access the location and need to do most maintenance remotely. They could only be trusted to reboot the machine at most, or perhaps select a different boot device from the old BIOS. The old OS is failing but cannot suffer downtime. I was hoping to install two different F25's in the small 20GB partition left unraided on the second disk: /dev/sdb17. Reboot to F25. Check everything. Then do the rest of the work slowly, carefully and incrementally from remote. Slowly copying files, enlarging partitions and finally, online raiding the root partition to the other disk, and finally attaining full redundancy. With at most a single remote reboot or possible none, and no downtime. There is more, but this already can only be done _only_, I believe, with Btrfs (ZFS) RAID1 over LVM volumes. It's not crazy, I have done similar things in the past. The customer never complained. Oh, I would have preferred a more stable environment, like RedHat or CentOS, but I need a recent kernel and btrfs-tools to do this. Going for coffee, back in an hour. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100 Mayavimmer wrote: > I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the > installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root > partition. That's weird. If it isn't operator error (the interface can be confusing, especially since it is doing something complicated, and isn't used often enough to get used to the quirks), then it sounds like a bug. But, the better way to do this, is to manually create the partitions you want for the second install, rsync the original install, and fix the /etc/fstab. A lot faster. I've run two versions of Fedora doing it this way, when I was going to upgrade one of them to a later version or rawhide, without problem. Never tried installing a second version, though I have successfully installed many times with other versions of Fedora on the system. I can't think of a reason why installing a second version would be an issue, but you could open a bugzilla to see what the developers think. The code is the final arbiter. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: > I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the > installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root > partition. Reproduce the problem, then grab the logs from /tmp while still in the installation environment, and put them up somewhere. The likely useful logs will be storage.log, program.log, and anaconda.log. It is possible to have two Fedora 25's on the system at the same time, with varying degrees of storage efficiency. The most efficient layouts use either Btrfs or LVM thin provisioning, sharing one storage pool for both installations (or even more than two). The one gotcha will be the bootloader configuration, whether UEFI or BIOS firmware, only one Fedora bootloader exists at one time. My preference is to make use of the GRUB configfile command to point to another grub.cfg. Exactly how to set this up depends on whether the firmware is UEFI or BIOS. -- Chris Murphy ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > > I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the > > installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root > > partition. > > This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — > and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests for details. The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios where the installer fails. More details needed! > So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not > surprised to hear it doesn't. It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why would it fail? Of course, some users try to set up dubious/questionable environments to begin with, such as /boot shared by multiple distributions and things like that. Personally, I only share /home and a couple of optional mount points. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 16:15:57 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > I have tried that very thing many times. It seems to fail in complicated > situations. Such as? Just out of interest (and I could have spared myself this test), 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. > And it never gives much of a diagnostic message beyond "your > configuration cannot be implemented" or some such. I'll try to repeat > those experiments and give details, starting tomorrow, if I can. *That* might lead to something. > >> 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. > In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? If it makes you happy. Decide yourself. > > and your description so far sounds like PEBKAC. ;-) > > I might accept that as your own opinion if you knew the actual details, > which I have not given yet, Hence my earlier requests for details. > 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. ??? > Thus your contribution so far sounds like an ad hominem. ;-) Talk is cheap. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 06:39:02PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the > > > installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root > > > partition. > > This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — > > and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. > I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests > for details. Manual installs with multiple of the same version? I stand corrected, then. :) -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: > On 01/01/2017 17:23, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >>> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >>> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >>> partition. >> >> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. So, >> while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not >> surprised to hear it doesn't. > > I tested about 10 F25 installs yesterday, plus 2 Rosalinux R8 and 2 Mint > 18, on an old server with 2GB RAM and a new laptop with 12GB RAM. All 3 > OS' had to deal with previous installed versions of the same, except a > couple of cases where I restarted from an empty disk. Only the F25's > gave me problems on both boxes and in different independent ways. > > An interesting behavior, as I explained a few posts ago, happens when > you install a second or a third F25, all in the standard LVM device > configuration. They seem to work ok, though there no indication on the > grub menu which one you are running. The problem appears when you > install a new F25 with the /boot partition _inside_ the LVM container, > which seems to work. Except, upon reboot the others are gone! A possible explanation for this, is this old bug. The installer doesn't make all LV's active, therefore grub2-mkconfig won't find them, and won't create boot entries for them. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 However annoying that is though, about as suboptimal is the way grub2-mkconfig makes generic boot entries for other OS's rather than just pointing to their "native" grub.cfg using the configfile command. This forwarding command is a vastly better workflow than the grub.cfg of Distro X becoming responsible for Distro Y. When Distro Y gets a kernel update, only Distro Y's grub.cfg is updated; so if you're using a configfile forwarding workflow, you'll see that new kernel automatically whereas if you depend on GRUB as-designed (including as it works in Fedora), you're totally stuffed. Distro X's grub.cfg won't reflect the change until you run grub2-mkconfig. > Also I tried my preferred configuration: Btrfs RAID1 over LVM, which > should give the best of both worlds: awesome scrub autorepair and proper > pooling of same disk spare partitions! The installer barks. It seems to > think that If I want to use Btrfs as a raid fs I also have to use it as > a volume manager. According the the Fedora info mentioned a few posts > back this should only cost a slight, not consistent as somebody said, > performance hit. Is is true that the installer cannot put a Btrfs fs on > a LVM partition? I could have missed something. The Fedora installer will not put Btrfs on either LVM or md RAID. You could use blivet-gui to get the layout you want in advance, and the installer should recognize all of those pieces (blivet-gui and anaconda both leverage python-blivet and libblockdev to recognize and create storage stacks) and let you set them up as mount points. For a pre-created Btrfs, the installer will force the creation of a new Btrfs subvolume for the "/" mount point; otherwise it will let you reuse existing subvolumes and file systems. Blivet-gui is supposedly going to be integrated into the Fedora 26 installer as an advanced partitioning option. The installer is supposed to enforce /boot on a standard partition or md RAID; but not allowing it to be in LVM or Btrfs. > >> >> Can I ask what you are aiming to accomplish with this? There might be a >> better way — virtualization or containers, perhaps. >> > > I have a remote customer with an old server with a Rosalinux and Mes5 on > top of a 2x2TB ext4 over raid. I cannot easily access the location and > need to do most maintenance remotely. They could only be trusted to > reboot the machine at most, or perhaps select a different boot device > from the old BIOS. The old OS is failing but cannot suffer downtime. I > was hoping to install two different F25's in the small 20GB partition > left unraided on the second disk: /dev/sdb17. Reboot to F25. Check > everything. Then do the rest of the work slowly, carefully and > incrementally from remote. Slowly copying files, enlarging partitions > and finally, online raiding the root partition to the other disk, and > finally attaining full redundancy. With at most a single remote reboot > or possible none, and no downtime. There is more, but this already can > only be done _only_, I believe, with Btrfs (ZFS) RAID1 over LVM volumes. If the OS itself is failing, you have no choice but to accept a moment of downtime to reboot new binaries. If it were just a case of a hard drive dying, migration to replacement hardware can be done with either Btrfs or LVM, independently. For LVM setups it's pvcreate > vgextend > pvmove > vgreduce. For Btrfs it's either 'btrfs replace' or more conve
Re: closing lid of laptop
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Paolo Galtieri wrote: > Using gnome-tweak-tool I tried both settings for the "Don't suspend on lid > closed" entry under the "Power" section, and in neither case does the system > suspend on lid closed since I could still ping the system. So other than > seeing this entry: > > Dec 31 10:22:01 terrapin kernel: acpi device:28: Cannot transition to power > state D3hot for parent in (unknown) You might read this and see if the low level kernel commands work; and work your way up to e.g. 'sudo systemctl suspend' to see where the problem starts happening. https://01.org/blogs/rzhang/2015/best-practice-debug-linux-suspend/hibernate-issues -- Chris Murphy ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: closing lid of laptop
On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Paolo Galtieri wrote: > Thanks for the information, but I don't think this is the problem since I > don't see those messages. What I discovered by using gnome-tweak-tool is > that the default behavior is to not suspend on lid closed. "Don't suspend on lid close" is Off by default. This is a double negative so it means suspend on lid close is the default. I'd rather it follow the language for Power Button which is to use an Action pop-up menu. Seems like there are three sane possibilities: Nothing, Suspend, Hybrid with the default being suspend. > What's really > confusing is that the entry under the Power section of gnome-tweak-tool says > "Don't suspend on lid closed" and there's this slider to the right, which is > unlabeled, so I don't know what state it's in. Weird, sounds like a font related bug or something; that slider for me is an Off / On slider and by default is Off (slider is to the left). -- Chris Murphy ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: closing lid of laptop
One thing I did discover is that the issue is hardware dependent. I have an older Dell laptop and it suspends when I close the lid. It's my newer laptop, i.e. about 4 years old that is currently having the problem. Here's the cpuinfo for the working system processor: 0 vendor_id: GenuineIntel cpu family: 6 model: 15 model name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz stepping: 6 microcode: 0xd1 cpu MHz: 2000.000 cache size: 4096 KB physical id: 0 siblings: 2 core id: 0 cpu cores: 2 apicid: 0 initial apicid: 0 fpu: yes fpu_exception: yes cpuid level: 10 wp: yes flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf eagerfpu pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm lahf_lm tpr_shadow dtherm bugs: bogomips: 3990.20 clflush size: 64 cache_alignment: 64 address sizes: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: processor: 1 vendor_id: GenuineIntel cpu family: 6 model: 15 model name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz stepping: 6 microcode: 0xd1 cpu MHz: 1000.000 cache size: 4096 KB physical id: 0 siblings: 2 core id: 1 cpu cores: 2 apicid: 1 initial apicid: 1 fpu: yes fpu_exception: yes cpuid level: 10 wp: yes flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf eagerfpu pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm lahf_lm tpr_shadow dtherm bugs: bogomips: 3989.84 clflush size: 64 cache_alignment: 64 address sizes: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: Here's the cpuinfo for the one that doesn't suspend: processor: 0 vendor_id: GenuineIntel cpu family: 6 model: 15 model name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz stepping: 6 microcode: 0xd1 cpu MHz: 2000.000 cache size: 4096 KB physical id: 0 siblings: 2 core id: 0 cpu cores: 2 apicid: 0 initial apicid: 0 fpu: yes fpu_exception: yes cpuid level: 10 wp: yes flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf eagerfpu pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm lahf_lm tpr_shadow dtherm bugs: bogomips: 3990.20 clflush size: 64 cache_alignment: 64 address sizes: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: processor: 1 vendor_id: GenuineIntel cpu family: 6 model: 15 model name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7200 @ 2.00GHz stepping: 6 microcode: 0xd1 cpu MHz: 1000.000 cache size: 4096 KB physical id: 0 siblings: 2 core id: 1 cpu cores: 2 apicid: 1 initial apicid: 1 fpu: yes fpu_exception: yes cpuid level: 10 wp: yes flags: fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl aperfmperf eagerfpu pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm lahf_lm tpr_shadow dtherm bugs: bogomips: 3989.84 clflush size: 64 cache_alignment: 64 address sizes: 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual power management: Paolo On 01/01/2017 10:43 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Paolo Galtieri wrote: Thanks for the information, but I don't think this is the problem since I don't see those messages. What I discovered by using gnome-tweak-tool is that the default behavior is to not suspend on lid closed. "Don't suspend on lid close" is Off by default. This is a double negative so it means suspend on lid close is the default. I'd rather it follow the language for Power Button which is to use an Action pop-up menu. Seems like there are three sane possibilities: Nothing, Suspend, Hybrid with the default being suspend. What's really confusing is that the entry under the Power section of gnome-tweak-tool says "Don't suspend on lid closed" and there's this slider to the right, which is unlabeled, so I don't know what state it's in. Weird, sounds like a font related bug or something; that slider for me is an Off / On slider and by default is Off (slider is to the left). ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:25, stan wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 10:10:55 +0100 > Mayavimmer wrote: > >> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >> partition. > > That's weird. If it isn't operator error (the interface can be > confusing, especially since it is doing something complicated, and isn't > used often enough to get used to the quirks), then it sounds like a bug. > > But, the better way to do this, is to manually create the partitions > you want for the second install, rsync the original install, and fix > the /etc/fstab. A lot faster. I thought about doing it this way, but was discouraged by the additional steps like, mounting /mnt and possibly binding stuff, grub installing and mkconfigging, fiddling with alternate names in grub.cfg and wondering what happens after the first kernel update, even worse in the EFI case where I don't yet understand what is the efi directory naming convention du jour, etc - you know, all those things an installer really should do, for 4 reasons: 1. It's pretty tedious and error prone. 2. It fiddles with the ugliest area of computerdom outside of the kernel: boot stuff. 3. If you mess up you could do it with flair. 4. Many fast changing technologies are involved simultaneously, and only the upstream distro devs are in a good position to handle synchronization. > > I've run two versions of Fedora doing it this way, when I was going to > upgrade one of them to a later version or rawhide, without problem. > Never tried installing a second version, though I have successfully > installed many times with other versions of Fedora on the system. I > can't think of a reason why installing a second version would be an > issue, but you could open a bugzilla to see what the developers think. > The code is the final arbiter. I'll organize a list of repeatable failure scenarios and gotchas. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:33, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >> partition. > > Reproduce the problem, then grab the logs from /tmp while still in the > installation environment, and put them up somewhere. The likely useful > logs will be storage.log, program.log, and anaconda.log. Thanks, very useful info. Will do that. > > It is possible to have two Fedora 25's on the system at the same time, > with varying degrees of storage efficiency. The most efficient layouts > use either Btrfs or LVM thin provisioning, sharing one storage pool > for both installations (or even more than two). > > The one gotcha will be the bootloader configuration, whether UEFI or > BIOS firmware, only one Fedora bootloader exists at one time. My > preference is to make use of the GRUB configfile command to point to > another grub.cfg. Exactly how to set this up depends on whether the > firmware is UEFI or BIOS. Yes that is exactly one of the wheels I did not want to reinvent. > > > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: >>> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >>> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >>> partition. >> >> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. > > I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests > for details. > > The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered > "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios > where the installer fails. More details needed! As soon as I can. I already gave some details in the other sister threads yesterday. > >> So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not >> surprised to hear it doesn't. > > It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If > you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why would it > fail? Same exact sentiment, sir. It's ok if the poor little AI in the installer can't hack complexity, but don't mess with my sacrosanct right to manually override everything. > > Of course, some users try to set up dubious/questionable environments > to begin with, such as /boot shared by multiple distributions and things > like that. Only legit hacking. Check. > > Personally, I only share /home and a couple of optional mount points. I don't even do that, unless at gunpoint (which was the case recently). I prefer separate homes with shared data partitions. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: koji : Kerberos authentication failed: No credentials cache found ??
On 01/01/2017 11:18 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:07:42AM -0500, sean darcy wrote: I'm experimenting with some patches to thunderbird, and trying to build it on koji. But no joy : [...] Browser certificate exported to ~/fedora-browser-cert.p12 See this message: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JK267PSDD53I2KGONDLFA5D4JWYXKZTQ/ "Packagers - Flag day 2016 Important changes" and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Kerberos In short: we switched from cert-based auth to kerberos auth. Make sure your system is up to date with the latest packager tools, and then run `kinit @FEDORAPROJECT.ORG`. Thanks for the prompt response. It worked, once I finally believed the domain name had to be in all caps. sean ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 01:01 PM, Mayavimmer wrote: On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root partition. This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests for details. The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios where the installer fails. More details needed! As soon as I can. I already gave some details in the other sister threads yesterday. So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not surprised to hear it doesn't. It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why would it fail? Same exact sentiment, sir. It's ok if the poor little AI in the installer can't hack complexity, but don't mess with my sacrosanct right to manually override everything. Of course, some users try to set up dubious/questionable environments to begin with, such as /boot shared by multiple distributions and things like that. Only legit hacking. Check. Personally, I only share /home and a couple of optional mount points. I don't even do that, unless at gunpoint (which was the case recently). I prefer separate homes with shared data partitions. Without having done it myself, I suspect that for the 2nd installation, grub will make write into /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file an entry that is similar to the entry it makes when it detects a windows bootable partition. I am not certain how many bootable partitions per disk grub2 supports. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: koji : Kerberos authentication failed: No credentials cache found ??
On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 03:26:53PM -0500, sean darcy wrote: > Thanks for the prompt response. It worked, once I finally believed > the domain name had to be in all caps. Yeah, that's a Kerberos thing. (It's a convention that's so strong as to be a rule — the Kerberos realm is the domain-name uppercased.) I'll edit the wiki to make a note. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 16:15:57 +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > >> I have tried that very thing many times. It seems to fail in complicated >> situations. > > Such as? I have described them already a few times. I don't want to make this thread very long. I will start a new thread with exact repeatable failure scenarios, as soon as I can, so we can have a disciplined discussion about this. > > Just out of interest (and I could have spared myself this test) You could start by sparing yourself this comment, sir. I also have spent many hours on this. Because I have to. If you don't want, you are free to do anything else you like. , 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. I need details! Did you UEFI or BIOS? How much free space did you have? Is that space all in a linear chunk or spread out to a piece in an LVM and another piece a raw partition, etc? Was your /boot inside or outside the LVM? Was there a preexisting Btrfs partition with some free space in it? Did you have a preexisting ext4 over LVM over Md RAID 1 install that may have confused the installer? I mentioned somewhere that on one machine _each_ install took 40 min. to finish the initial fsck! How long was yours? These are some of the problems I ran into. But you did not have any issues. Good for you. > >> And it never gives much of a diagnostic message beyond "your >> configuration cannot be implemented" or some such. I'll try to repeat >> those experiments and give details, starting tomorrow, if I can. > > *That* might lead to something. That will certainly be better than the information I can offer now. But what I have already given, plus the helpful contribution of some other users should already amount to something. > 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. And I recommend you desist from making personal recommendations to any user on this list. > >> In my humble opinion the F25 installer is awkward. Can I say that? > > If it makes you happy. Decide yourself. It is not a question of happiness, but of clarity. > >>> and your description so far sounds like PEBKAC. ;-) >> >> I might accept that as your own opinion if you knew the actual details, >> which I have not given yet, > > Hence my earlier requests for details. I already answered that. > >> 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? >> 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. That does not give you the right to say that the problem is me. This is a technical list for the purpose of collectively improving a great product I chose to use. Your behavior diminishes the list. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:45, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 06:39:02PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root partition. >>> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >>> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. >> I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests >> for details. > > Manual installs with multiple of the same version? I stand corrected, > then. :) > Ok, thanks, so I take it that it can be done. I'll try again then, with step by step details. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 18:58, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> On 01/01/2017 17:23, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root partition. >>> >>> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >>> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. So, >>> while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not >>> surprised to hear it doesn't. >> >> I tested about 10 F25 installs yesterday, plus 2 Rosalinux R8 and 2 Mint >> 18, on an old server with 2GB RAM and a new laptop with 12GB RAM. All 3 >> OS' had to deal with previous installed versions of the same, except a >> couple of cases where I restarted from an empty disk. Only the F25's >> gave me problems on both boxes and in different independent ways. >> >> An interesting behavior, as I explained a few posts ago, happens when >> you install a second or a third F25, all in the standard LVM device >> configuration. They seem to work ok, though there no indication on the >> grub menu which one you are running. The problem appears when you >> install a new F25 with the /boot partition _inside_ the LVM container, >> which seems to work. Except, upon reboot the others are gone! > > A possible explanation for this, is this old bug. The installer > doesn't make all LV's active, therefore grub2-mkconfig won't find > them, and won't create boot entries for them. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 My new hero, Chris! I think you just found one of the gremlins that made my previous installs disappear! I knew I didn't just dream that up! Ok, I'll study this and see if I can come up with a workaround. I see there are some good reasons why this has not been solved long ago. > > However annoying that is though, about as suboptimal is the way > grub2-mkconfig makes generic boot entries for other OS's rather than > just pointing to their "native" grub.cfg using the configfile command. > This forwarding command is a vastly better workflow than the grub.cfg > of Distro X becoming responsible for Distro Y. When Distro Y gets a > kernel update, only Distro Y's grub.cfg is updated; so if you're using > a configfile forwarding workflow, you'll see that new kernel > automatically whereas if you depend on GRUB as-designed (including as > it works in Fedora), you're totally stuffed. Distro X's grub.cfg won't > reflect the change until you run grub2-mkconfig. Yes! That's the other one I kind of suspected, and always bothered me in the back of my mind. I always thought you should be able to at least provide a prefix to a config file, perhaps based on the hostname, and then rebuild grub.cfg from that. Great. Progress at last. > > > >> Also I tried my preferred configuration: Btrfs RAID1 over LVM, which >> should give the best of both worlds: awesome scrub autorepair and proper >> pooling of same disk spare partitions! The installer barks. It seems to >> think that If I want to use Btrfs as a raid fs I also have to use it as >> a volume manager. According the the Fedora info mentioned a few posts >> back this should only cost a slight, not consistent as somebody said, >> performance hit. Is is true that the installer cannot put a Btrfs fs on >> a LVM partition? I could have missed something. > > The Fedora installer will not put Btrfs on either LVM or md RAID. Another bullseye! Had I known this I would have saved time! Maybe the installer should add a line of text alerting the user to that effect, for the time being. If you advertize that you can install LVM, Vtrfs, Md and other wonderful things, you should at least, IN THE INSTALLER, warn the user. Great, thanks. > > You could use blivet-gui to get the layout you want in advance, and > the installer should recognize all of those pieces (blivet-gui and > anaconda both leverage python-blivet and libblockdev to recognize and > create storage stacks) and let you set them up as mount points. For a > pre-created Btrfs, the installer will force the creation of a new > Btrfs subvolume for the "/" mount point; otherwise it will let you > reuse existing subvolumes and file systems. Blivet-gui is supposedly > going to be integrated into the Fedora 26 installer as an advanced > partitioning option. Good to know that it's in the works! > > The installer is supposed to enforce /boot on a standard partition or > md RAID; but not allowing it to be in LVM or Btrfs. It _did_ let me install /boot in LVM though. Strange. > > >> >>> >>> Can I ask what you are aiming to accomplish with this? There might be a >>> better way — virtualization or containers, perhaps. >>> >> >> I have a remote customer with an old server with a Rosalinux and Mes5 on >> top of a 2x2TB ext4 over raid. I cannot easily access the location and >> need to do most mainte
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 01/01/2017 21:45, JD wrote: > > > On 01/01/2017 01:01 PM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the > installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root > partition. This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. >>> I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests >>> for details. >>> >>> The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered >>> "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios >>> where the installer fails. More details needed! >> As soon as I can. I already gave some details in the other sister >> threads yesterday. >> So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not surprised to hear it doesn't. >>> It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If >>> you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why >>> would it >>> fail? >> Same exact sentiment, sir. It's ok if the poor little AI in the >> installer can't hack complexity, but don't mess with my sacrosanct right >> to manually override everything. >> >>> Of course, some users try to set up dubious/questionable environments >>> to begin with, such as /boot shared by multiple distributions and things >>> like that. >> Only legit hacking. Check. >> >>> Personally, I only share /home and a couple of optional mount points. >> I don't even do that, unless at gunpoint (which was the case recently). >> I prefer separate homes with shared data partitions. > Without having done it myself, I suspect that for the 2nd installation, > grub will > make write into /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file an entry that is similar to > the entry it makes > when it detects a windows bootable partition. > > I am not certain how many bootable partitions per disk grub2 supports. Yes, Chris mentioned similar problems. I don't have a solid enough grasp of the interaction between grub and uefi/bios conventions, but I suspect something similar. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Mayavimmer wrote: > On 01/01/2017 18:33, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:10 AM, Mayavimmer wrote: >>> I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the >>> installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root >>> partition. >> >> Reproduce the problem, then grab the logs from /tmp while still in the >> installation environment, and put them up somewhere. The likely useful >> logs will be storage.log, program.log, and anaconda.log. > > Thanks, very useful info. Will do that. > >> >> It is possible to have two Fedora 25's on the system at the same time, >> with varying degrees of storage efficiency. The most efficient layouts >> use either Btrfs or LVM thin provisioning, sharing one storage pool >> for both installations (or even more than two). >> >> The one gotcha will be the bootloader configuration, whether UEFI or >> BIOS firmware, only one Fedora bootloader exists at one time. My >> preference is to make use of the GRUB configfile command to point to >> another grub.cfg. Exactly how to set this up depends on whether the >> firmware is UEFI or BIOS. > > Yes that is exactly one of the wheels I did not want to reinvent. Unfortunately it is not already invented by upstream GRUB or any other distro. The existing method creates generic entries for "other OS's" rather than forwarding entries. The result is a really incredibly bad UX for multiboot - worse than the work necessary to do it correctly rather than the overly complicated wrong way it's done now. -- Chris Murphy ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Mayavimmer wrote: > On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root partition. >>> >>> This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — >>> and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. >> >> I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests >> for details. >> >> The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered >> "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios >> where the installer fails. More details needed! > > As soon as I can. I already gave some details in the other sister > threads yesterday. > >> >>> So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not >>> surprised to hear it doesn't. >> >> It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If >> you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why would it >> fail? > > Same exact sentiment, sir. It's ok if the poor little AI in the > installer can't hack complexity, but don't mess with my sacrosanct right > to manually override everything. Well you really only get a true manual override with CLI installation. Any function in a GUI installer requires coding. Manual overrides involve some of the most complex coding, error handling, and sanity checks, with a very high degree of liability that I think it's not worth any GUI installer having such capability. The most reliable installer examples have essentially no options, and definitely nothing that really looks like a manual override such as what Anaconda offers. And yet they'll do what you're asking for. A literal manual override for everything is highly overrated, and with all the installer testing and bug filing I've done and looking at myriad use cases, it's just not worth it. It'd have been easier to just have a bunch of use case pop-ups for automatic partitioning presets. -- Chris Murphy ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM, JD wrote: > > Without having done it myself, I suspect that for the 2nd installation, grub > will > make write into /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file an entry that is similar to the > entry it makes > when it detects a windows bootable partition. On BIOS firmware computers, yes. And it's the 2nd installation GRUB that "owns" the drive. It is this grub.cfg whose generic entries should be replaced using configfile to point to the 1st installations grub.cfg. This is much more maintainable and compatible. On UEFI firmware, there is only one fedora bootloader and grub.cfg, so the 2nd installation will overwrite the 1st. I would modify the installation so that each has its own grub.cfg found at /boot/grub2 just like it's a BIOS setup (and is supported by upstream GRUB as they do it this way by default, I'm baffled why Fedora does this differently). And then create a minimalist grub.cfg on the efi system partition that points to the two installation specific grub.cfgs by using configfile command. > I am not certain how many bootable partitions per disk grub2 supports. A lot. It's limited by GRUB's ability to ennumerate, i.e. hdXmsdosY, where the practical limit of Y is maybe something like 128. It supports loading the kernel+initramfs on almost everything: md raid5 degraded; LVM, primary or extended MBR partitions, LUKs encrypted volumes, Btrfs, ZFS, it's quite impressive what it can do. What -- Chris Murphy ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 02/01/2017 01:57, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Mayavimmer wrote: >> On 01/01/2017 18:39, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 11:23:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 01, 2017 at 10:10:55AM +0100, Mayavimmer wrote: > I tried to do an identical second install on the same machine, but the > installer Anaconda gives an error about being unable to set a root > partition. This isn't _forbidden_, but it also isn't something we test offically — and in fact I'm not sure if anyone has actually tested it ever. >>> >>> I do manual installs like that regularly. Hence the earlier requests >>> for details. >>> >>> The original post doesn't give enough details. I could have answered >>> "yes" to the $subject, and yet there might be installation scenarios >>> where the installer fails. More details needed! >> >> As soon as I can. I already gave some details in the other sister >> threads yesterday. >> >>> So, while I don't see why it couldn't be made to work, I also am not surprised to hear it doesn't. >>> >>> It's the opposite here. I'm surprised manual partitioning would fail. If >>> you point the installer at usable partitions for / and /boot, why would it >>> fail? >> >> Same exact sentiment, sir. It's ok if the poor little AI in the >> installer can't hack complexity, but don't mess with my sacrosanct right >> to manually override everything. > > Well you really only get a true manual override with CLI installation. > Any function in a GUI installer requires coding. Manual overrides > involve some of the most complex coding, error handling, and sanity > checks, with a very high degree of liability that I think it's not > worth any GUI installer having such capability. The most reliable > installer examples have essentially no options, and definitely nothing > that really looks like a manual override such as what Anaconda offers. > > And yet they'll do what you're asking for. > > A literal manual override for everything is highly overrated, and with > all the installer testing and bug filing I've done and looking at > myriad use cases, it's just not worth it. It'd have been easier to > just have a bunch of use case pop-ups for automatic partitioning > presets. I agree. I did not literally mean that you should have a gui and the logic behind it to specify every existing option. I was merely exaggerating a bit to drive home the point that I feel more manual control is needed. I think the sweet spot goes something like this: have a couple of fully automatic use cases covered, but then if you go outside them disable the smart decision making -- just put any fs type on any block device, even if considered stupid (/boot inside LVM, Btrfs over LVM, root too small, stop fscking my 2TB drives, etc), chastising the user with a warning, at most. It feels like we have two modes now: full-auto and semi-auto, where I prefer full-auto and manual. > > > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On 02/01/2017 02:10, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM, JD wrote:
>>
>> Without having done it myself, I suspect that for the 2nd installation, grub
>> will
>> make write into /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file an entry that is similar to the
>> entry it makes
>> when it detects a windows bootable partition.
>
> On BIOS firmware computers, yes. And it's the 2nd installation GRUB
> that "owns" the drive. It is this grub.cfg whose generic entries
> should be replaced using configfile to point to the 1st installations
> grub.cfg. This is much more maintainable and compatible.
>
> On UEFI firmware, there is only one fedora bootloader and grub.cfg, so
> the 2nd installation will overwrite the 1st. I would modify the
> installation so that each has its own grub.cfg found at /boot/grub2
> just like it's a BIOS setup (and is supported by upstream GRUB as they
> do it this way by default, I'm baffled why Fedora does this
> differently). And then create a minimalist grub.cfg on the efi system
> partition that points to the two installation specific grub.cfgs by
> using configfile command.
Eminently reasonable.
And while we are waiting for that, I would ask: why the UEFI overwrite
pain? Can we add these 3 lines of pseudocode?
if thisBox.alreadyHas( anotherFedora ) and isUEFI:
showDialog("Sorry, cannot currently add a second Fedora")
exit(0)
>
>> I am not certain how many bootable partitions per disk grub2 supports.
>
> A lot. It's limited by GRUB's ability to ennumerate, i.e. hdXmsdosY,
> where the practical limit of Y is maybe something like 128. It
> supports loading the kernel+initramfs on almost everything: md raid5
> degraded; LVM, primary or extended MBR partitions, LUKs encrypted
> volumes, Btrfs, ZFS, it's quite impressive what it can do. What
>
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Mayavimmer wrote: > On 01/01/2017 18:58, Chris Murphy wrote: >> A possible explanation for this, is this old bug. The installer >> doesn't make all LV's active, therefore grub2-mkconfig won't find >> them, and won't create boot entries for them. >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 > > My new hero, Chris! I think you just found one of the gremlins that made > my previous installs disappear! I knew I didn't just dream that up! > > Ok, I'll study this and see if I can come up with a workaround. I see > there are some good reasons why this has not been solved long ago. That's charitable. I see it as one of the very bad cases of OSS, it's all kinds of finger pointing blame by upstreams, miscooperation at the user expense. And it's replicated at a different layer by distros who don't care about standardizing this basic system booting problem, so there's no interoperability. Why this is not a bigger problem is because installing two Fedoras is rare. So there aren't many complaints. Next, other distros don't use LVM by default, so their installations are found by grub2-mkconfig. It's only Fedora/RedHat default installations that get hit with this bug. >> >> However annoying that is though, about as suboptimal is the w >> grub2-mkconfig makes generic boot entries for other OS's rather than >> just pointing to their "native" grub.cfg using the configfile command. >> This forwarding command is a vastly better workflow than the grub.cfg >> of Distro X becoming responsible for Distro Y. When Distro Y gets a >> kernel update, only Distro Y's grub.cfg is updated; so if you're using >> a configfile forwarding workflow, you'll see that new kernel >> automatically whereas if you depend on GRUB as-designed (including as >> it works in Fedora), you're totally stuffed. Distro X's grub.cfg won't >> reflect the change until you run grub2-mkconfig. > > Yes! That's the other one I kind of suspected, and always bothered me in > the back of my mind. I always thought you should be able to at least > provide a prefix to a config file, perhaps based on the hostname, and > then rebuild grub.cfg from that. Great. Progress at last. The distros variably apply hundreds of patches on top of upstream GRUB. While they aren't literal forks, they are sufficiently different and mutually incompatible, that they're fast becoming different OS's that just so happen to share a kernel. > >> >> >> >>> Also I tried my preferred configuration: Btrfs RAID1 over LVM, which >>> should give the best of both worlds: awesome scrub autorepair and proper >>> pooling of same disk spare partitions! The installer barks. It seems to >>> think that If I want to use Btrfs as a raid fs I also have to use it as >>> a volume manager. According the the Fedora info mentioned a few posts >>> back this should only cost a slight, not consistent as somebody said, >>> performance hit. Is is true that the installer cannot put a Btrfs fs on >>> a LVM partition? I could have missed something. >> >> The Fedora installer will not put Btrfs on either LVM or md RAID. > > Another bullseye! Had I known this I would have saved time! Maybe the > installer should add a line of text alerting the user to that effect, > for the time being. If you advertize that you can install LVM, Vtrfs, Md > and other wonderful things, you should at least, IN THE INSTALLER, warn > the user. Great, thanks. *shrug* well they're mutually exclusive devices, the installer simply won't let you pick them in combination. If there were a warning for every possible unsupported layout, the whole installer would be putting up dozens of placards everytime the user clicked on something. Plus, warning dialogs in an installer are very heavy weight: difficult to get the right wording to convey the problem and work around, they need translations which have different (earlier) deadlines than most everything else, are hard to maintain. It's just a huge resource suck. > >> >> You could use blivet-gui to get the layout you want in advance, and >> the installer should recognize all of those pieces (blivet-gui and >> anaconda both leverage python-blivet and libblockdev to recognize and >> create storage stacks) and let you set them up as mount points. For a >> pre-created Btrfs, the installer will force the creation of a new >> Btrfs subvolume for the "/" mount point; otherwise it will let you >> reuse existing subvolumes and file systems. Blivet-gui is supposedly >> going to be integrated into the Fedora 26 installer as an advanced >> partitioning option. > > Good to know that it's in the works! > >> >> The installer is supposed to enforce /boot on a standard partition or >> md RAID; but not allowing it to be in LVM or Btrfs. > > It _did_ let me install /boot in LVM though. Strange. Some versions permit it. It comes and goes depending on what bugs pop up during release testing. Ostensibly boot on LVM is supportable by GRUB2, kernel, dracut, systemd, and the software
Re: Can a second F25 be installed on the same machine?
On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Mayavimmer wrote:
> On 02/01/2017 02:10, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 1:45 PM, JD wrote:
>>>
>>> Without having done it myself, I suspect that for the 2nd installation, grub
>>> will
>>> make write into /boot/grub2/grub.cfg file an entry that is similar to the
>>> entry it makes
>>> when it detects a windows bootable partition.
>>
>> On BIOS firmware computers, yes. And it's the 2nd installation GRUB
>> that "owns" the drive. It is this grub.cfg whose generic entries
>> should be replaced using configfile to point to the 1st installations
>> grub.cfg. This is much more maintainable and compatible.
>>
>> On UEFI firmware, there is only one fedora bootloader and grub.cfg, so
>> the 2nd installation will overwrite the 1st. I would modify the
>> installation so that each has its own grub.cfg found at /boot/grub2
>> just like it's a BIOS setup (and is supported by upstream GRUB as they
>> do it this way by default, I'm baffled why Fedora does this
>> differently). And then create a minimalist grub.cfg on the efi system
>> partition that points to the two installation specific grub.cfgs by
>> using configfile command.
>
> Eminently reasonable.
>
> And while we are waiting for that, I would ask: why the UEFI overwrite
> pain? Can we add these 3 lines of pseudocode?
>
> if thisBox.alreadyHas( anotherFedora ) and isUEFI:
> showDialog("Sorry, cannot currently add a second Fedora")
> exit(0)
Because that code by itself would prevent replacing an existing Fedora
(of any release version). So now you need a dialog that tells the user
they need to first remove the existing Fedora to install a new Fedora.
And while that is arguably a less trouble UX, it thwarts the dual
Fedora user case where the user has the ability to hack up the
bootloader but doesn't want to screw around with the gory details of
OS installation.
This use case isn't that difficult to support if there were other
changes made to simplify installation and bootloading in general,
while also standardizing bootloading. macOS and Windows manage to do
this today and their installers are completely brain dead stupid. So
it doesn't take a complicated installer to do the things people *need*
to do. It takes a complicated installer to do the things people want
to do but could be met some other way but they don't want to do it
that way because it's not their way and get all pissy if the installer
isn't justifying their way with direct support. I still advocate
ripping out all of the custom partitioning UI... and I'm not a fan of
making the installer ass tons more complicated by inserting blivet-gui
into it. Just run that tool from outside the installer if desired,
cluttering up the installer just makes it more unwieldy...
When billion dollar companies have rock solid installers that only
support the 80% use case with essentially zero bugs and user
complaints about lack of function; compared to installers that try to
disproportionately appease the other 20% use cases with constant
regressions, it makes me think of project failure.
--
Chris Murphy
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hibernation locks the system instead of hibernating
Hi, I am setting up a new Dell Precision 5510. It has 16gb of RAM. I chose to create a swapfile of 24gb (1.5 times is recommended by RHEL 7 docs). The swap is on, resume flag has been set in /etc/default/grub, and secure boot if off. That's my understanding of the common bug entry. When I hibernate my system it simply locks the system. No hibernation is done. I gave Kubuntu a try to see if there is a problem with hibernation and it works fine on Kubuntu. If you guys have any ideas I would really appreciate it. Regards, Sudhir Khanger, sudhirkhanger.com. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
