Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 588483
Minimal+gnome installation doesn't install X server
Last modified: 2014-03-16 23:23:18 EDT
Description of problem: Minimal+gnome installation doesn't install X server Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 13 beta How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. Start install 2. Choose Minimal+Customise Now+Select Gnome 3. Actual results: Reboot post install shows blank screen Expected results: Graphical login Additional info: Choosing minimal install then adding gnome with Customise Now fails to install an X server - this then means that the initial boot "fails" just leaving a blank screen. In fact console logins are available if one switches VTs I'd sort-of expect that gnome would depend on enough X to actually get a login screen presented on initial boot.
What exactly did you click when you selected "Gnome" ? There is no one GNOME package, and we don't have any groups called "GNOME" as far as I know (We have some desktop groups that will pull in GNOME though).
This is by design. The gnome desktop group includes the packages necessary to run gnome, but doesn't necessarily include packages to run it /locally/. You can ssh in with forwarded X11 and run gnome on a remote X host. In order to be able to run it locally, you must also select the Base X group.
> What exactly did you click when you selected "Gnome" ? Desktop environments, then Gnome (desktop) - but I think Jesse has a handle on what happened.... > This is by design OK, but if you don't select the base X group the install apparently "fails" because the only thing you see on initial boot is a blank screen, not a console login. It might be intentional but, to my mind at least, I /did/ expect minimal+"gnome desktop"to install just enough for a local graphical login plus a local gnome desktop.
heh -- that would be Debian's: Suggests ;)
Getting nothing but a blank screen does indeed sound like a bug. You should have been given the text login prompt. If you can reproduce, please file that as a separate bug.
Well there are potentially two bugs here: 1) anaconda puts runlevel 5 in inittab even when X server isn't installed (or maybe GDM doesn't Requires: Xorg ?) 2) Niche case of GNOME but-no-X is trumping slightly less niche case of "minimal GNOME install"
anaconda sets runlevel 5 based on the presence of a display manager. The display managers do not require the server.
alright, so we've got to figure out whether the fix for 1) is: - Make anaconda set runlevel 5 based on the presence of a display manager AND the presence of a X server or - Make GDM require X If we go for the latter option we fix 2) as a side-effect We could go for both, I suppose. CHRIS LUMENS do you have thoughts?
> - Make anaconda set runlevel 5 based on the presence of a display manager AND > the presence of a X server Are there valid reasons for running in runlevel 5 without having an X server installed? Are there other programs that provide the same functionality as the X server that will require a broader test than just checking for xorg-x11-server (or whatever) in the transaction set? Are there valid reasons for installing GDM but not an X server? I'm fine with either fix, and I can see reasons for doing it both ways.
IMO... - runlevel 5 by default with X server *and* display manager == valid - runlevel 5 by default with display manager only == invalid - runlevel 5 by default with X server only == invalid - install with X server and display manager == valid - install with display manager only == valid (remote terminal/client server) - install with X server only == valid, if sort of pointless.
> - runlevel 5 by default with X server *and* display manager == valid > - runlevel 5 by default with display manager only == invalid > - runlevel 5 by default with X server only == invalid > > - install with X server and display manager == valid > - install with display manager only == valid (remote terminal/client server) > - install with X server only == valid, if sort of pointless. This sounds like you prefer an anaconda solution, then.
Created attachment 413275 [details] patch Something like the attached, I suspect.
Looks reasonable to me. Feel free to commit to master, or send to anaconda-devel-list if you really want to go crazy with the process. But consider this my ACK.
Added on the F-14 branch.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 13 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 13. 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 WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '13'. 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 prior to Fedora 13's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 13 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 please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. 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. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 13 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2011-06-25. Fedora 13 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. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.