| Summary: | installer fails to report missing or corrupt /etc/fedora-release | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Steve Tyler <stephent98> | ||||
| Component: | anaconda | Assignee: | Brian Lane <bcl> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
| Version: | 15 | CC: | anaconda-maint-list, jonathan, vanmeeuwen+fedora | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | anaconda-16.5-1 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2012-03-08 23:07:35 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Steve Tyler
2011-04-16 17:25:21 UTC
The "Cannot Upgrade" message could say that it is looking for /etc/fedora-release and report what it found, including its contents, if the file is consistent with the RPM database[1]. The F14 Installation Guide explains the significance of /etc/fedora-release: "If the contents of your /etc/fedora-release file have been changed from the default, your Fedora installation may not be found when attempting an upgrade to Fedora 14." http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html-single/Installation_Guide/index.html#ch-upgrade-x86 [1] Bug 697236 - installer fails to detect corrupt /etc/fedora-release Retitling now that I have figured out where the installer is going wrong: "installer fails to report missing or corrupt /etc/fedora-release" Bug 697047, Comment 10 has a simple reproducer for the missing case -- rename /etc/fedora-release. Changing the contents of /etc/fedora-release reproduces the corrupt case (Bug 697236). If the file is missing it is correct to report that it cannot upgrade the install. It should probably say 'Unknown on sda1' instead of leaving it blank. (In reply to comment #3) > If the file is missing it is correct to report that it cannot upgrade the > install. It should probably say 'Unknown on sda1' instead of leaving it blank. I believe that it would more informative to explicitly tell the user that the installer cannot find /etc/fedora-release. Saying 'Unknown on sda1' does not help the user figure what is going wrong with the install. A *realistic* scenario for /etc/fedora-release being missing on a Fedora system is documented in Bug 697047 (install failure or cancellation before fedora-release package is installed). And if you read through it, you will see that I had a lot of trouble figuring out what was going wrong with my attempt to reinstall. The GUI should make it easy to understand that the installer is looking for /etc/fedora-release. /etc/fedora-release could also be missing because the disk contains a Ubuntu installation, say. Of course, the Fedora installer does not need to figure out that it is a Ubuntu disk. BTW, the F14 Installation Guide has this to say: "If the contents of your /etc/fedora-release file have been changed from the default, your Fedora installation may not be found when attempting an upgrade to Fedora 14." http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html-single/Installation_Guide/index.html#ch-upgrade-x86 (In reply to comment #4) ... > BTW, the F14 Installation Guide has this to say: > "If the contents of your /etc/fedora-release file have been changed from the > default, your Fedora installation may not be found when attempting an upgrade > to Fedora 14." > http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/14/html-single/Installation_Guide/index.html#ch-upgrade-x86 Putting something like this sentence into the "Cannot Upgrade" dialog would almost completely address this bug: "If /etc/fedora-release cannot be found or has changed from the default, an upgrade cannot but be done. By clicking "Continue" you will be able to begin a "Fresh" install." That doesn't address the wording for the too-old and too-new cases, though ... (In reply to comment #3) > If the file is missing it is correct to report that it cannot upgrade the > install. It should probably say 'Unknown on sda1' instead of leaving it blank. 'Unknown on sda1' Just realized you meant that to appear in the list of devices. That's a good idea. For example: 'Unknown on sda1' 'Fedora 1 on sdb1' The explanatory text could read something like this: '"Unknown" means a device cannot be upgraded because /etc/fedora-release cannot be found on it or the file has changed from the default.' 'By clicking "Continue" you will be able to begin a "Fresh" install on sdXN.' Thanks, Brian.
+ oldInstalls += _("Unknown release on %s") % (info[2])
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=commitdiff;h=e0008f7c967c820707cac9303af66e8e515c8f54
|