Bug 450460
Summary: | Anaconda considered harmful | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Joseph A. Farmer <jfarmer99> |
Component: | anaconda | Assignee: | Anaconda Maintenance Team <anaconda-maint-list> |
Status: | CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 9 | ||
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: | 2008-06-17 21:03:57 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
Joseph A. Farmer
2008-06-08 19:05:37 UTC
Did you save the exception that anaconda threw the first time? The rsyslog thing is a package issue, not a problem with anaconda. "Did you save the exception that anaconda threw the first time?" Sadly no. "Save" would mean write down with pen and paper as the machine wasn't in any state to save anything. Yes, I should have anyway but I didn't. "The rsyslog thing is a package issue, not a problem with anaconda." Yes, and no. If nothing else can be gained from that long report, this should: On an install Anaconda should not fail due to package conflicts with existing packages on a valid drive. On an "upgrade" I can see it. Not on an install. If a machine has an invalid package state, this one didn't but let's move on, the easiest way to "recover" is a fresh install. Given that people have data files they don't want to lose formatting the drive is not the best solution. I'll reiterate, on an install to a valid drive with existing packages, two possible solutions exist: 1) Figure out the packages on the drive causing conflict and erase them. This would be hard. 2) Simply erase any history of any packages on the target hard drive. This will remove any potential conflicts in packages. There may be file conflicts but those are easier as overwrites within the RPM handle that. Is it possible that the package conflict was within the Fedora 9 DVD? Possible but unlikely. After I mounted the drive in rescue mode and wiped out RPM, YUM, and MLocate's history the install went swimmingly. I understand "upgrade" is fraught with danger. I accept that a "double upgrade" is walking the trapeze with no net. On an "install" though it should just work. The way to do that is nuke what it takes to make it happen. Not much needed to be nuked. I know this as that is exactly what I did. That could be automated and added to Anaconda. Consider it a request for enhancement. To the best of my knowledge, the package conflicts have not been resolved, as I have encountered them when testing installations. I would agree with you that the install should not fail, and I think there should be an option to skip the conflicting package or packages (or to pick one) rather than have the only option be to restart the installation, so I'll see what can be done about that. As for the data loss.. I don't know whether anaconda was going to overwrite the existing data anyway, or whether it was lost because the installation failed and the system got confused. |