Bug 250810 (Stan)
| Summary: | LVM's not mounting during upgrade install. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Need Real Name <hornyaks> |
| Component: | anaconda | Assignee: | Anaconda Maintenance Team <anaconda-maint-list> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 5.0 | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | i686 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-07-09 09:25:53 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: | |||
Thats clearly an update problem though, reassigning to anaconda team so they can take a look at the bug. Read ya, Phil Can you test in Fedora if possible and let us know if this is still a problem? I believe it should be fixed and therefore will make it into RHEL6. Hmm. Don't currently have hardware to attempt on Fedora, although my workstation is Fedora 7, I don't have LVM configured, and current desire/need to disrupt all the tailoring, if you know what I mean.. :) I personally did not have an issue with Fedora, and I would need to spend some time and effort looking up the person who reported the similar issue in Fedora to give you the number. If I get a chance, I may be able to look up for you. In-place upgrades across major releases do not preserve all system settings, services, and custom configurations. For this reason, Red Hat strongly recommends that you perform a fresh installation rather than a system upgrade between major versions. Upgrade is to be used for minor versions. Of course, I'm disappointed in the answer, and of course I already provided the workaround/fix. Since the decision to provide support to only the Enterprise releases of RH, the quality and knowledge level, in my eyes, of the support I do get (from RH), has dropped significantly. After my workaround, the issue was some minor library issues to get a few apps running. Also, since the issue is still clearly a bug, I've changed the status to WONTFIX. Joel has made clear that RH will not support upgrades, even though I've already established that upgrades do work. |
Description of problem: On upgrade from Enterprise 4 to Enterprise 5, LVM2 volumes were not mounting. Only / root partition and /boot paritition were mounting. Install error was "The following are directories which should instead be symbolic links, which will cause problems with the upgrade. Please return them to their original state as symbolic links and restart the upgrade. /usr/tmp" BTW: Saw a bug report under Fedora, and I'm wondering if the issue is similar. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ES 4 to ES 5 How reproducible: Unsure, only one machine thus far. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Installed ES 4 originally as partitions 2. Migrated partitions to LVM volumes and labeled those volumes with tune2fs Exception did not migrate / root or /boot 3. Changed /etc/fstab to reflect file system labels. Above actions work for normal boot Actual results: During Upgrade install received: "The following are directories which should instead be symbolic links, which will cause problems with the upgrade. Please return them to their original state as symbolic links and restart the upgrade. /usr/tmp" Expected results: No errors Additional info: Changed screen to mingetty on F2 to verify LVM not mounting volumes. Checked mingetty on F3 saw the following errors. WARNING : fstab file has LABEL=TMP, but this label could not be found any file system WARNING : fstab file has LABEL=USR, but this label could not be found any file system The errors go on, but I think you will begin to see what I see. Changed /etc/fstab to reflect /dev/VG/LV devices instead of labels, and install completed WITHOUT error. Went back and change fstab back to original format, and machine boots normally post install. Of course, my point is that I should not have had to make changes to the fstab.....