Installing on an old Sparc IPC system, via Anonymous FTP (ftp.redhat.com) Selected Server Install, set TimeZone, Set Root password, and created a user, then ... The system reported "Reading Packages" and then halts with a "Exception Occured" error. ---------------------- Traceback (innermost last): File "/usr/bin/anaconda.real", line 230, in ? intf.run(todo, test = test) File "/tmp/lib/python1.5/site-packages/text.py", line 1038, in run ... Etc, etc ---------------------- Then I am presented with "OK" and "DEBUG" "OK" shuts down the system, debug appears to bring up some kind of debuger...
I have replicated this error using the 1474560 Nov 16 14:13 boot32.img on a SS20 doing anon ftp install from another sparc on my LAN. The installer crashes during rpm fetch & install phase... not sure if it's the same spot. Oddly enough, my first 6.1 install on this machine went fine. I've since added a new drive & been unable to repeat the install. Feel free to mail me for more details. Thanks!! Franko
Just checked my ftp logs, looks like my install keeps dying in the same spot Thu Nov 25 08:24:55 1999 1 ss20.ashe84.com 662699 /pub/RedHat/RPMS/gnuchess-4.0. pl80-2.sparc.rpm b _ o a anonymous ftp 0 * Thu Nov 25 08:24:58 1999 1 ss20.ashe84.com 150850 /pub/RedHat/RPMS/libxml-1.4.0- 1.sparc.rpm b _ o a anonymous ftp 0 * Thu Nov 25 10:40:22 1999 1 ss20.ashe84.com 662699 /pub/RedHat/RPMS/gnuchess-4.0. pl80-2.sparc.rpm b _ o a anonymous ftp 0 * Thu Nov 25 10:40:26 1999 1 ss20.ashe84.com 150850 /pub/RedHat/RPMS/libxml-1.4.0- 1.sparc.rpm b _ o a anonymous ftp 0 * The last lines of the traceback looks like this... "var/tmp/python-root/usr/lib/python1.5/ftplib.py", line 201, in getresp IOError: [Errorno ftp error] [Errno ftp error] 550 zlib-1.1.3-5.sparc.rpm: No such file or directory. I checked & the file it's looking for is indeed missing... [root@mail RPMS]# ls zlib* -rw-r--r-- 1 root ftp 66603 Nov 16 15:08 zlib-devel-1.1.3-5.sparc.rpm [root@mail RPMS]# I went up to ftp.redhat.com & the file is there, somehow it was skipped during the download. > ls zlib* zlib-1.1.3-5.sparc.rpm zlib-devel-1.1.3-5.sparc.rpm ftp.redhat.com /pub/redhat/current/sparc/RedHat/RPMS redhat> Only one question remains, why was it looking for zlib when it looks like it normally does everything in alphabetical order. Hope this helps, Franko
Using ncftp, I re-downloaded the entire /RedHat tree. Ncftp only pulled the files I was missing. Tried the install again & it worked fine. Hope this helps. I sent mail to the sparc-list about how to fix the problem. Bugzilla is a very usefull tool!! Franko
We will work to put together a little better error handling for stuff like this so that you do not have to go rooting around in logs to determine what happened.
THE BUG AINT OVER TILL THE THIN MAN SINGS! I must admit, I read this bug, and beleive it to still exist. I recently from (a day or two ago) the redhat ftp site downloaded the ISO image for the SPARC version of RH6.1. I think it means that the current ISO image of the SPARC can be flushed! Well, need I say more? I am not posting here cause it worked! I am sure you figured that much out. My configuration: SPARC 2, 1GB Fitjutisu SCSI DR, 16MB RAM I attempted to begin the install, and it got a point where it said something like, oh g-d, you have so little ram, hurry up lets make a swap partition. This came after I had used the fdisk screens to create the partitioning info for the drive. It then put a message like "Formatting swap partition...". The next thing I saw was: Traceback (innermost last); File "/usr/bin/anaconda", line 238, in ? intf.run(todo, test = test) File "/usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages/text.py", line 238, in run RC = apply(step[1](), step[2]) File "/usr/lib/python1.5/site-packages/textw/pa.py", line 171, in __CALL__ todo.makefilesystems ( createfs = 0 ) File If a bug and half is pressed into a cdrom and half in a day in and half, and it happens twice to the same stock holder, the company looses money do you think he will show up at the stock holders meeting and raise holly hell? In other words, this is the third major bug in the installation script which was not found prior to release in the last few months with RH6.1. I have had the raw experience of two out of three. Thank g-d, I bagged Solaris a year ago or I'd a really been upset. This bug, along with the Solaris swap, and NT partition bugs, could all have been prevented with one small item: QUALITY CONTROL. Dont get me wrong, I have the deepest respect for RedHat, and as a consultant continue to recommend it as a solution for customers.