Description of problem: bootloader is not installed correctly, unable to boot after installation on Lenovo T520 with Intel's SSD drive. Legacy boot option selected. Works correctly with F16. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Alpha RC4 Steps to Reproduce: 1. prepare USB stick with livecd-iso-to-disk 2. install 3. reboot Actual results: Fedora doesn't boot. Expected results: Fedora boots.
Created attachment 565008 [details] program.log
Created attachment 565009 [details] anaconda.log
burned Fedora-17-Alpha-x86_64-Live-KDE.iso to cd, booted, ran installer. Only slightly modified default setup: no lvm deleted extra /home (put all in / partition) bootloader config set for boot sector of boot partition (instead of mbr). After install, rebooted, but see nothing but blinking cursor like reporter here. :(
installing default partioning/bootloader options worked, maybe I simply saw a variation of bug #794957
Jaroslav, please also attach /tmp/storage.log (or /var/log/anaconda/anaconda.storage.log). Thanks.
Rex: sorry for the stupid question, but did you actually have a bootloader in the MBR before you tried to install? If so, what bootloader, installed by what OS? -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
I started with a blank/new disk in this case (in comment #3)
(In reply to comment #7) > I started with a blank/new disk in this case (in comment #3) Rex, you are describing bug 794957. Please go there if you want to comment further. In this bug report we are trying to identify the problem Jaroslav reported, which does not involve installing the bootloader to the first sector of a partition, but rather to the MBR. Setting NEEDINFO(reporter) again to get storage.log.
(In reply to comment #3) > bootloader config set for boot sector of boot partition (instead of mbr). > > > After install, rebooted, but see nothing but blinking cursor like reporter > here. :( This requires a bootloader in the MBR. The only way to boot from the first sector of the boot partition is by chainloading from the main (MBR) bootloader.
Right, Rex's case is user error. We should stick to Jaro's and Reartes' issues. Jaro says he'll provide storage.log soon. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Created attachment 565068 [details] storage.log Btw. this is storage.log from another install (I wiped out first one while trying next round).
Actually the #11 storage.log is from working configuration - I did not changed anything in the setup but it just boots now... NOT A BUG? But still I wonder what was different this time.
Proposing as an Alpha blocker just so we track this for the go/no-go. It's *potentially* a blocker but we need to know what the hell's going wrong. jaro says his latest attempts are back to failure, I've asked him to attach logs. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Created attachment 565089 [details] new storage.log for failed install
Created attachment 565098 [details] anaconda.program.log As Adam asked me to re-upload the failed ones logs together.
Created attachment 565099 [details] new anaconda.log
My vote on this is -1 blocker: it's a bad result but we have no other reports of this fail, and several reports of success, which leads me to believe it's specific to Jaro's system. We'd love to know what's causing it, though. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
I'm -1 alpha blocker on this for similar reasons that adam lists in c#17. It seems to be isolated in contrast with several successful results.
I am with Tim and Adam on -1 alpha blocker; not having any reproduction with other successes. Would like to see some work on tracking it down but not feeling blockerish.
Discussed in the 2012-02-22 Fedora 17 Alpha Go/No-Go meeting. Agreed that this seems to be an isolated incident and not an indicator of a larger problem. As such, it is rejected as a blocker for Fedora 17 alpha.
-- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
Since there hasn't been activity here since prior to the alpha I assume that this problem has gone away. Please re-open (or file a new bug) if the problem is still present.