From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8 Description of problem: Now that my sata drive is detected properly during the install, thank you very much : ), I have discovered a new issue when trying to upgrade from core 1 to core 2t3. Simply put, the device name has changed, in core 1 it was /dev/sda and in core 2 it's /dev/hde (this is because of a change made in the kernel). So.. when trying to upgrade, it tells me that the swap /dev/sda5 is not initizlied and reboots. I fixed it by (after getting back into the installer) chrooting to my root partition and editing my fstab to change /dev/sda to /dev/hde. I can forsee this being a real issue when fc2 is released... at least for people with via sata controllers. I'm not sure of the best way to correct something like this though... perhaps give the user a list of partitions to choose from when the partition as specified in fstab can't be found? So in my case, because there isn't a swap partition at /dev/sda5, it could then list all the swap partitions it did find? (or really.. in the case of swap, that could be done automatically). Maybe a better example would be the partition I have /opt on.... so it looks for a ext3 drive on /dev/sda6, and if it can't find one, it prompts listing all the ext3 partitions it could find, and lets you select one. I don't know.. maybe an advanced function that let you confirm all the mount points? Forget the wizard aspect above, and just give them a list of mount points and partitions and let them figure it out? That might be best.. in the case of my home computer I have 3 scsi drives and the sata drive, and I could see where /dev/sda6 might actually map to a partition, but not be the "right" partition. I can also see the problem coming up when modules load in a different order (if you have multiple scsi controllers and drives). If I've completely confused you let me know. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fc2t3 iso How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. have fc1 installed on a sata drive on a via controller 2. try to upgrade to fc2 Actual Results: failed, couldn't find swap drive, asked me to reboot Expected Results: it should let me upgrade : ) Additional info:
Created attachment 99742 [details] error received as install was finishing
Sorry..here's a better description for that attachment : ) I received that error as anaconda was finishing up the upgrade. I think it might be related to the device name change, but only because I haven't seen anyone else post this error. Anyway, I figure you can decide it's useful to you or not. : ) The system seems to be running fine after the upgrade, so the error couldn't have had much effect.
*** Bug 126953 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 139919 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[This is a mass update sent to many bugs that missed earlier such messages due to having their version set to a test version.] This bug was originally filed against a version of Fedora Core which is no longer supported, even for security updates. Many changes have occured since then. Please retest this bug against a still supported version. Note that FC3 and FC4 are supported by Fedora Legacy for security fixes only. If it still occurs on FC5 or FC6, please assign to the correct version. Otherwise, if this a security issue, please change the product to Fedora Legacy. Thanks, and we are sorry that we did not get to this bug earlier. This bug will be closed after a few weeks if no information is given indicating that the bug is still present in a supported release.
Closing per lack of response to previous request for information. This bug was originally filed against a much earlier version of Fedora Core, and significant changes have taken place since the last version for which this bug is confirmed. Note that FC3 and FC4 are supported by Fedora Legacy for security fixes only. Please install a still supported version and retest. If it still occurs on FC5 or FC6, please reopen and assign to the correct version. Otherwise, if this a security issue, please change the product to Fedora Legacy. Thanks, and we are sorry that we did not get to this bug earlier.