DescriptionMichael Catanzaro
2013-06-01 18:50:52 UTC
Created attachment 755606[details]
anaconda.log
Description of problem: I cannot install Fedora 19 Beta (using the default GNOME live CD). When I click "install now," no window opens for anaconda, but the anaconda process starts and begins to eat away my CPU.
When run as root in a terminal, there are tons of errors:
Starting installer, one moment...
anaconda 19.30-1 for anaconda bluesky (pre-release) started.
No protocol specified
** (anaconda:2720): WARNING **: Could not open X display
No protocol specified
No protocol specified
(anaconda:2720): Gdk-CRITICAL **: gdk_screen_get_root_window: assertion `GDK_IS_SCREEN (screen)' failed
No protocol specified
An unknown error has occured, look at the /tmp/anaconda-tb* file(s) for more details
<related warnings, massive snip>
(anaconda:2720): Gtk-CRITICAL **: _gtk_css_rgba_value_get_rgba: assertion `rgba->class == >K_CSS_VALUE_RGBA' failed
Could not parse metalink https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-bluesky&arch=x86_64 error was
No repomd file
Could not parse metalink https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=updates-testing-fbluesky&arch=x86_64 error was
No repomd file
Could not parse metalink https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=updates-released-fbluesky&arch=x86_64 error was
No repomd file
^C
Probably more helpful errors are in anaconda.log (attached). Note that I ran (and killed) anaconda three times.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 19.30-1.fc19
How reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run anaconda :(
Actual results: No window opens and anaconda process uses large amount of CPU
Expected results: anaconda opens
Additional info:
Comment 1Michael Catanzaro
2013-06-01 18:54:33 UTC
You don't run 'anaconda' directly if you want to run it from a console on a live image, you run 'liveinst'.
I'm going to take a guess that this is likely https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=679486 . Can you check if that matches up?
Comment 4Michael Catanzaro
2013-06-05 04:43:33 UTC
I'll look more at this tomorrow, but as the stack trace in my exception report is so similar to the one in Bug #928279, it's clearly the same bug. Thanks.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 679486 ***