Created attachment 1612830 [details] screenshot Description of problem: Finish a installation and leave some free space [lnie@localhost-live ~]$ lsblk NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda 8:0 0 50G 0 disk ├─sda1 8:1 0 1G 0 part /boot ├─sda2 8:2 0 23.9G 0 part │ ├─fedora_localhost--live-root 253:0 0 20G 0 lvm / │ └─fedora_localhost--live-swap 253:1 0 3.9G 0 lvm [SWAP] └─sda3 8:3 0 10G 0 part /home boot Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-31-20190907.n.0.iso on the newly installed system,remount /home,try to set / to 39G only get 23G,though there are 15G free space available. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-31-20190907.n.0.iso How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Created attachment 1612831 [details] storage.log
Created attachment 1612832 [details] anaconda.log
I have sent a pull request for this bug:https://github.com/storaged-project/blivet/pull/803. It seems that "This" bug can be fixed by changing "/home" weight so that it can be resided on the second partition, but how about the users want to try to reuse the '/' partition?Plus,changing weight is too professional for me. So,I have chose another way.
Proposed as a Blocker for 31-final by Fedora user lnie using the blocker tracking app because: This seems affect the criteria: The installer must be able to create and install to any workable partition layout using any file system and/or container format combination offered in a default installer configuration,and the custom partitioning criteria also covers re-using "/home" .
While I'm not completely against supporting multiple PVs per disk, I do not think this qualifies as a blocker given that users can avoid this problem by using the blivet-gui interface.
Lili, do I understand correctly that you've re-used all existing partitions, i.e. sda1 as /boot, the VG on sda2 for /, and sda3 for /home? In that case, it seems logical that you only have available 24G for /, because the existing VG (and the underlying sda2) is 24G. Are you saying anaconda should allow you to use the free space after sda3 as well, using custom partitioning?
(In reply to Kamil Páral from comment #6) > Lili, do I understand correctly that you've re-used all existing partitions, > i.e. sda1 as /boot, the VG on sda2 for /, and sda3 for /home? In that case, > it seems logical that you only have available 24G for /, because the > existing VG (and the underlying sda2) is 24G. Are you saying anaconda should > allow you to use the free space after sda3 as well, using custom > partitioning? kamil,nope,I only wanted to re-use /home with / and /boot deleted
(In reply to David Lehman from comment #5) > While I'm not completely against supporting multiple PVs per disk, I do not > think this qualifies as a blocker given that users can avoid this problem by > using the blivet-gui interface. I have tried blivet-gui,but it seems dosen't work,failed with screenshot1(/boot filesyetem can't be type of lvmpv), if I removed /boot,and try to add a new /boot,I see bug #1756288. Plus,blivet-gui is very hard to use,at least for me,and seems have many bugs,with about one hour use, I have seen 3 bugs(2 reported,I will reported another after I figure out how to fix it:)
Created attachment 1619988 [details] screenshot1
I know /boot filesystem cann't be type of lvmpv,but it is ext4 according to the journal,oh,the fourth bug?I'm gonna to report this.
(In reply to lnie from comment #10) > I know /boot filesystem cann't be type of lvmpv,but it is ext4 according to > the journal,oh,the fourth bug?I'm gonna to report this. Sorry,I was wrong about this comment,I thought blivet-gui will remain the mountpoint as in non-blivetgui installation,but as you can see from the screenshot1,blivet-gui has removed the mountpoint, then there is another problem,shouldn't the warning message be "you haven't defined a /boot partition"?
(In reply to lnie from comment #7) > kamil,nope,I only wanted to re-use /home with / and /boot deleted OK, I understand now. The problem is that if you keep a partition in the middle of the disk you end up with two separate free space areas, but the custom partitioning can create LVM just from a single PV. So if you have e.g. 24G and 15G free space regions, you can use just one of them for your VG, and anaconda shows you you still have some free space, but you can't use it and are not told why. So it feels like a bug. I think this is a design error, honestly. The custom partitioning tries to present a simple view of a complex problem, and unless it is very smart and capable behind the scenes (which in this case it isn't), these inconsistencies will show up. And even if it were very smart and capable, there are some issues which you can't simply solve when you don't want to show a physical partition layout (e.g. when dealing with standard partitions, then in this case you simple can't let the user use the full free space just for /). The user feedback could definitely be better, though. If I understand David correctly, the custom partitioning was never able to create multiple PVs to create a VG, so this is not a recent regression.
Discussed during the 2019-09-30 blocker review meeting: [0] The decision to classify this bug as a "RejectedBlocker" was made as this seems to be more a design limitation in the custom partitioning UI than a clear bug, and is not a regression; it's not really suitable for treatment as a blocker bug. We'll hold that it doesn't violate the criterion as the installer is not "offering" to create the layout in question. [0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2019-09-30/f31-blocker-review.2019-09-30-16.00.txt
This message is a reminder that Fedora 31 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 31 on 2020-11-24. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '31'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 31 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 31 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2020-11-24. Fedora 31 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.