Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 200431
%packages in anaconda-ks.cfg aren't right
Last modified: 2014-03-16 23:00:53 EDT
Created attachment 133178 [details]
Created attachment 133179 [details]
I note also that 'repo' lines aren't written to anaconda-ks.cfg; in this case,
Perhaps the use of an addtional repo is one reason the %packages is wrong?
I can't believe this made it into RHEL 5 with all the hype.
This happened to me twice now on RHEL 5 installs. One desktop and one server.
This is from my resulting kickstart:
That's bad. Not even @base is there!
notting - Is this better in the F7 test releases? I've done some fixes on this
This should now be better in all cases. ISO image install method %packages
sections won't be written out correctly in test 4, but should be okay for final.
Created attachment 156616 [details]
install.log from F7
Here's an install.log from F7. DVD-based install.
Created attachment 156617 [details]
anaconda-ks.cfg from F7
... and the corresponding anaconda-ks.cfg
User firstname.lastname@example.org's account has been closed
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported
against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no
longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are
flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer
maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now,
we will automatically close it.
If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or
rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change
the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version
or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.)
Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.
The process we're following is outlined here:
We will be following the process here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this
doesn't happen again.
Thank-you for the reply. I honestly believe that this was resolved. I checked
w/ a FC8 installation and the kickstart file that was left behind appeared to be OK.
If I determine that it was not resolved correctly, I will reopen a bug report.