Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 205970
text install from cdrom fails, cdrom is not mounted for rpm
Last modified: 2008-05-06 12:19:33 EDT
Description of problem: text install fails at package installation because cdrom
is not mounted on /mnt/source
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 5.91 (FC 6 Test 2)
How reproducible: Always on Supermicro i2DMR system with internal CDROM
Steps to Reproduce:
1. perform text install from CDROM, any configuration.
/mnt/cdrom should be mounted at package install, but is not
system should install normally, just as RH AS 3.0 does on this system.
This works on our FC6t3 test trees. Please try again with that release and
reopen this bug if you are still experiencing problems.
From jbass Tue Sep 12 11:47:53 2006
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: [Bug 205970] text install from cdrom fails, cdrom is not mounted
I've tried this some half dozen times already, and it always fails at the same spot.
At first I thought it was a package managment issue, and just a particular package
was missing, so I tried the install with various package options, and it failed with
a different package each time.
In debugging, I used the text console on F3, and found there was no CD mounted,
and no device for the CD created in /dev.
It creates the root file system, populates a small collection of directories,
installs some network configuration files, a few rpm files, then dies.
Install is from the built in IDE/ATA cdrom on this Supermicro Itanium 2 server,
in text mode, because the gui dies on this machine because of an unsupported
Rage XL chip ... as per another bug report.
Closing this without asking for additional information, and entering into a dialog
with the person reporting the bug to discover it's root clause is in poor form.
For some 35 years I've made a living porting cross architecture, including a lot
of UNIX kernel and applications porting. IA64 doesn't have a chance if bugs are
closed this easily.
Prarit Bhargava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> John L. Bass wrote:
> > Thanks ... I don't see an updated schedule, so i guess the Sept 14 date
> > is still a go for FC6T3 release ... I can wait a couple days. Good luck
> > on the panic resolution.
> > What IA64 machines are your QA guys regression testing against?
> SGI, HP, Fujitsu ...
I understand that HP is using their own I/O chips, that are not clones of the
Intel PCI/ISA bridges. What about the other guys? This Supermicro box is using:
[root@ollie root]# cat /etc/issue
Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 3 (Taroon)
Kernel \r on an \m
[root@ollie root]# lspci
00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corp. 82801DB USB (Hub #1) (rev 02)
00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corp. 82801DB USB (Hub #2) (rev 02)
00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corp. 82801DB USB (Hub #3) (rev 02)
00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corp. 82801DB USB2 (rev 02)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corp. 82801BA/CA/DB/EB PCI Bridge (rev 82)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corp. 82801DB LPC Interface Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.1 IDE interface: Intel Corp. 82801DB Ultra ATA Storage Controller (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corp. 82801DB/DBM SMBus Controller (rev 02)
01:02.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Rage XL (rev 27)
02:1c.0 PIC: Intel Corp. 82870P2 P64H2 I/OxAPIC (rev 04)
02:1d.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corp. 82870P2 P64H2 Hub PCI Bridge (rev 04)
02:1e.0 PIC: Intel Corp. 82870P2 P64H2 I/OxAPIC (rev 04)
02:1f.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corp. 82870P2 P64H2 Hub PCI Bridge (rev 04)
03:02.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82546EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller
(Copper) (rev 01)
03:02.1 Ethernet controller: Intel Corp. 82546EB Gigabit Ethernet Controller
(Copper) (rev 01)
The box didn't have a problem installing or running with the ATA CDROM under RH AS3,
as you might note.
> > I'm
> > a little concerned the NPF reply to this install bug from your QA
> > lab is likely the same regression set used to test FC6T2 last month.
> > I can only assume the problem wasn't seen that cycle either.
> We haven't seen anything like this. Could you update the closed BZ with
> the info in your original reply?
Will do. I suggest that your staff reopen it until formally resolved, as an NPF
just because the QA regression didn't see it for either FC6T2 or FC6T3 isn't
enough data to close the ticket.
PS ... this is how far the text install got before failing without a cdrom:
[root@ollie root]# ls -R /fedora
boot dev etc lost+found proc rhinstall-stage2.img root selinux sys tmp var
fstab hosts modprobe.conf mtab resolv.conf rpm sysconfig X11
cache lib tmp
__db.001 __db.002 __db.003 Packages Providename
John, could you try grabbing the latest fedora development tree and http/ftp/nfs
See: [Bug 211963] Text Install failes with RPM unable to access packages, cdrom
Posted with log files from install attempt based on FC6T3 iso images on a
Fedora Core 5 and Fedora Core 6 are, as we're sure you've noticed, no longer
test releases. We're cleaning up the bug database and making sure important bug
reports filed against these test releases don't get lost. It would be helpful if
you could test this issue with a released version of Fedora or with the latest
development / test release. Thanks for your help and for your patience.
[This is a bulk message for all open FC5/FC6 test release bugs. I'm adding
myself to the CC list for each bug, so I'll see any comments you make after this
and do my best to make sure every issue gets proper attention.]
Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're
sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted
on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to
make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks.
If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6,
please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly
encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to
refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs
for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them.
If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days
from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in
the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If
you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting
Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.
The process we are following is outlined here:
We will be following the process here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this
doesn't happen again.
And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things
better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
This bug is open for a Fedora version that is no longer maintained and
will not be fixed by Fedora. Therefore we are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen thus bug against that version.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.