Description of problem:
Trying to install FC4 on a dualboot machine with Win2K and earlier (SuSE8)
linux distro. 2 year-old AMD Athlon 256M RAM, 2 HDD (60G & 40G). Working with
the 4-CD set. Verified first CD, and assumed that later CDs, being RPM
repositories would be OK. Disk 3 was bad, and the install hung.
I tried re-creating the CD on a second machine, without downloading a new ISO
but just the RPMs that were corrupt on the first copy. This did not work
because the .discinfo file was not copied. Subsequent efforts to copy this file
(in both Windows AND Linux) failed. I had to cancel the install, with the
result that the machine was dead in the water; the previous GRUB install was
trashed. Several hours later, I was able to select options to install that
miraculously skipped disc 3, and I got up and running.
Observation 1: if FC4 is going to trash a computer because of corrupt media,
then the media check shouldn't be optional. (I do note that there are issues
with the media check)
Observation 2: if FC4 wants to check for disc IDs, why not make them copyable?
Observation 3: GRUB installation and configuration should be early in the
system install process so that if subsequent packages fail to install, the
system isn't completely unbootable.
Observation 4: discs 2-4 are RPM repositories. It is unclear to me why FC4
needs the .discinfo validation in the first place. If I can provide a CD that
has the right RPMs on it, why does FC4 need a particular key to unlock it? BTW,
this requirement holds even after FC4 is installed, and I want to add
applications using the included GUI.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
The .discinfo is required so that we know what CD you've put in -- otherwise,
there's no way to tell. This is why mediacheck is strongly recommended --
people complain about it even as-is.
Thanks for the reply, but you make no mention about the observations I made.
Honestly, I don't see why those observations are invalidated by the need to
know which disk is in the machine.
I especially think that if the FC install is going to turn a computer into a
doorstop (there's a joke in there), there's a responsibility on the installer
either to be more rigid (i.e. requiring media checks) or more flexible (i.e.,
allowing users to copy discinfo or not requiring discinfo at all).
Moreover, it seems to me that if people are "complaining about it", that maybe
there's a problem with the assumptions of the installer software. I am a firm
believer of the saying "the customer is right"--and this sounds like a case of
the software not taking into account the realities of human nature.
(In reply to comment #1)
> The .discinfo is required so that we know what CD you've put in -- otherwise,
> there's no way to tell. This is why mediacheck is strongly recommended --
> people complain about it even as-is.