Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 18175

Summary: Multi-level mount point causes install to fail
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Jim Martin <jim>
Component: installerAssignee: Michael Fulbright <msf>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-10-03 17:55:54 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jim Martin 2000-10-03 04:09:09 UTC 
During 7.0 (and 6.2) install, when assigning mount points to two existing
vfat partitions, I used a multi-level mount point (read: I assigned the
FAT32 partition that Win2k was in to /balrog/Win2000). The installer
accepted this perfectly happily, but when it got to the point of actually
installing packages (a few minutes and screens later), anaconda (the first
package I was installing) blew up (refused to install). I power-cycled, and
on the next try didn't assign mount points to the Win32 partitions, all
worked fine. Did someone do a mkdir rather than a mkdir -p somewhere?
Comment 1 Daniel Roesen 2000-10-03 17:46:21 UTC 
Sounds like duplicate of Bug #18032, but I'm not 100% sure.
Comment 2 Jim Martin 2000-10-03 17:55:51 UTC 
Possible, but I'm also not positive. In Bug #18032, the install was default, with the only (admitted) tweek that all packages were selected. I'd expect that 
in that case there wouldn't be a multi-level mount point. We'll see what the RH guys think....
Comment 3 Michael Fulbright 2000-10-03 19:42:39 UTC 
Sounds like a dupe - check your traceback against 18032 and if its different
reopen this bug.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18032 ***
Comment 4 Erik Troan 2000-12-08 19:44:03 UTC 
*** Bug 18270 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***