Bug 206531

Summary: Can not upgrade with installer
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Chris Wright <chrisw>
Component: anacondaAssignee: Paul Nasrat <nobody+pnasrat>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: dtimms
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-03-19 22:39:28 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Anaconda exception trace
none
anaconda exception trace- Unknown header tag basepath none

Description Chris Wright 2006-09-14 21:23:54 UTC 
Description of problem:

Can not upgrade with the installer.

Release number of selected component (if applicable):
anaconda-11.1.0.95-1

How reproducible:

Everytime

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Boot with install disk
2. Select upgrade
3. Crashes with exception attached
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 1 Chris Wright 2006-09-14 21:23:54 UTC 
Created attachment 136309 [details]
Anaconda exception trace
Comment 2 David Timms 2006-09-16 08:08:38 UTC 
Created attachment 136413 [details]
anaconda exception trace- Unknown header tag basepath

I'm able to reproduce same exception FC6T3, although while handling
java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-plugin package:
...
  File "/usr/lib/anaconda/dispatch.py", line 123, in gotoNext
    self.moveStep()
  File "/usr/lib/anaconda/gui.py", line 919, in nextClicked
    self.anaconda.dispatch.gotoNext()
MiscError: Unknown header tag basepath

Local variables in innermost frame:
self: java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-plugin - 1.4.2.0-40jpp.104.i386
tag: basepath
e: 'unknown header tag'
...
i386, pentiumII, hp omnibook 4150. FC6T2/devel to kernel 2.6.171.2600.fc6 i686
{I know upgrade from test is not ~supported~}
Comment 3 David Timms 2006-09-16 08:23:56 UTC 
exception trace is same, and hence duplicate of #205961
Comment 4 Chris Wright 2007-03-19 22:39:28 UTC 
This is old, and should have long since been fixed (as a dup of 206913).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 206913 ***