Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 10672
HTTP to FTP switch during bootnet installation
Last modified: 2008-05-01 11:37:55 EDT
When installing RedHat 6.2 from a floopy to which I rawwrite'd the Bootnet
image I encountered the following problem:
new download Redhat 6.2 installed on running from webserver on Win 98
Bootnet floppy on designated machine
Install method HTTP,
enter IP webserver
enter directory webserver where RH 6.2 resides.
after completing the above the installation does not conyinue because the
second stage can't be loaded. Wrong response from FTP server, netsg2.img
can'tbe loaded is the response.
I have found the same problem
The dialog titles "FTP Error" (or something like that) during a HTTP
installation is actually a bug. The title on the dialog is incorrect and the
installer has not just changed installation methods :-)
Sounds like you are having a problem with the webserver you are installing
from. If the netstg2.img file actually there (it should be in the /RedHat/base
directory), then I would make sure that you can get to it using a web browser.
If you are able to browse and see the file, then the HTTP installation should
work without any problems.
I am having the same problem. Here are the entries from my Apache log files:
error_log (when I try to run RH HTTP netinstall):
[Mon May 15 11:19:23 2000] [error] [client 10.1.2.1] Invalid URI in request GET
access_log (when I successfully access the same file from lynx):
10.1.3.2 - - [15/May/2000:11:42:28 -0400] "GET /i386/RedHat/base/netstg2.img
HTTP/1.0" 200 2197746
In reply to firstname.lastname@example.org,
I tried your suggestion before I posted the bug, but the directory/file was
accessible thru a browser over my Intranet. I had previously distributed RH 6.1
succesfully under the same webdirectory structure and permissions and the same
webserver installation as the RH 6.2 install.
I think from my logfile entries the solution should be quite easy. It looks
like the HTTP installation agent in RH6.2 does not prepend a '/' in front of
the directory name automatically. I bet if you write e.g. "/i386" instead
of "i386" as the name of the directory containing the installation files, it
You are correct.