Bug 200431
| Summary: | %packages in anaconda-ks.cfg aren't right | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Bill Nottingham <notting> | ||||||||||
| Component: | anaconda | Assignee: | Peter Jones <pjones> | ||||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | |||||||||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | daly, rvokal, triage | ||||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened | ||||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | bzcl34nup | ||||||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2008-04-24 12:53:33 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: | |||||||||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 150224, 237684 | ||||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||
|
Description
Bill Nottingham
2006-07-27 17:12:43 UTC
Created attachment 133178 [details]
install.log
Created attachment 133179 [details]
anaconda-ks.cfg
I note also that 'repo' lines aren't written to anaconda-ks.cfg; in this case, it was: repo --name=extras-devel --baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/development/i386/ Perhaps the use of an addtional repo is one reason the %packages is wrong? I can't believe this made it into RHEL 5 with all the hype. This happened to me twice now on RHEL 5 installs. One desktop and one server. This is from my resulting kickstart: %packages @graphics That's bad. Not even @base is there! notting - Is this better in the F7 test releases? I've done some fixes on this stuff. This should now be better in all cases. ISO image install method %packages sections won't be written out correctly in test 4, but should be okay for final. Created attachment 156616 [details]
install.log from F7
Here's an install.log from F7. DVD-based install.
Created attachment 156617 [details]
anaconda-ks.cfg from F7
... and the corresponding anaconda-ks.cfg
User pnasrat's account has been closed Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now, we will automatically close it. If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.) Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again. Thank-you for the reply. I honestly believe that this was resolved. I checked w/ a FC8 installation and the kickstart file that was left behind appeared to be OK. If I determine that it was not resolved correctly, I will reopen a bug report. Thanks, again. |