Re: How's 10.2 look ?

Et circa horam Sunday 10 Dec 2006 18:12, clamavit houghi:

Jacek K B?aszkowski wrote:
It is an *OFFER*.
Then why not offer something safer?

Like what?
Like mounting each partition for a moment, taking a quick look what's on it
(the top level of the partition's directory structure carries A LOT of
information) and making an assumption what can be put where.

Imagine you are the decider, how would you offer it to my
system? here is the information on my system:
(hd1) /dev/hdb / or /media/HDB1
(fd0) /dev/fd0 floppy
(hd3) /dev/hdf /media/data or /home/houghi/media
(hd2) /dev/hde /home or /media/home
(hd0) /dev/hda / or /media/HDA1

If there is more information to make your choice, please let me know.
Partition sizes? Filesystems? Labels?
In my case, hda3 (/) and hda5 (/) are pretty much the same size and maybe
this is what confuses the installer. But hey, hda5 is labelled "/home",
which is self-explanatory.

The installer looks for an empty partition to use. If
that ain't available, it will propose the last HD to use. With me it
proposes hdf and I.
Well, it does not need to wipe two partitions in order to install. One is
just fine.

And does openSUSE know about this?
Well, it does not take Einstein to figure out that if a partition that is
about to be used as /home has a suitable, clean filesystem, it does NOT
have to be formatted. For what purpose? If the user decides that he doesn't
need the data that lies there, he'll wipe it himself.

- dealing with problems. About 70% of packages installed, then amarok
fails integrity check.

Didn't happen to me.
It's not about the integrity check - it's all about the installer's way
of dealing with broken packages. It's not a kernel, it's just a media
player. To terminate installation because of a broken media player? It
really takes a genius to invent such a behaviour.

The fact that there is a broken package wories me much, much more then
the fact of how the installer reacts to it. What package are you exactly
talking about, because I have not noticed it. That way I can check and
file a bugreport.
The package (amarok) is probably OK - I just noticed that my ISO has a wrong
checksum, which indicates a dodgy download. It's not a broken package I'm
complaining about (because this is most likely a download error); it's the
installer's way of dealing with it. I assume it should display a warning
and go on installing, since amarok is not mission-critical.

I want to marry the person who did it, as I have no issues with it
whatsoever.
You mean, it never interrupted detecting the HW only to display a
meaningless dialog? Lucky you :)

Apparently, because I have never seen that kind of behaviour in all my
years I work with SUSE.
Really strange. I have to say that I'm quite confused why it happened to me.

As I wrote later, it was my fault in some way.

I read that after posting.

I think the installer is excelent and have only praise about it. I think
it is the best installer since I started using SUSE with 5.3 or 5.4.
Untill now 9.1 wwas my favorite. I have done a LOT of installs
Just of curiosity: what did the other installers do with a corrupt
package? It only happened to me for the first time, so I can't compare it
to anything.

I have not seen a broken package on any of the SUSE distributions before

and I
realy say that this is the best installer they have been able to
produce.
They can do much better.

hey are awayting your input and that is by no means cynical. It is very
serious. Join the mailinglists and start contributing (if you don't
already do that).
I'll think about it. There are a couple of things that are probably very
easy to solve, and now are left in a very stupid state. Example: my WiFi
card. It was correctly detected, but it needs firmware and the relevant
tool (bcm43xx-fwcutter) rpm was not installed.

At one point there used to be only /, untill somebody proposed / and
/home.
Which is an excellent thing; I always keep separate / and /home - this way I
can do a clean install without worrying about my data. My point is that I
can see no good reason to suggest formatting /home.

Take FAT/NTFS partitions. The installer suggests mounting them in /windows/X
and not formatting them. IMO that's the best thing it can do and I think it
can do a similar thing with /home: if there is a suitable partition, create
a mountpoint and do NOT wipe it.

Regards, jkb

--
"Jedno z jego małżeństw rozpadło się w szczególnie tragiczny sposób.
Zawsze w chwilach największego, miłosnego uniesienia zostawiał Koslowski
swoją żonę samotną w łóżku i szedł do kuchni, by godzinami układać
erotyki. Zresztą wcale nie takie złe." (M. Augustin)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Next openSUSE
    ... You shouldn't need to be root to do any copying. ... addressed with an identifier and not with the number of the partition. ... so that a novice is forced into the automatic installer mess. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Time to upgrade FC8->FC10
    ... Unforch the F8 installer refuses to allow a /boot ... partition of over 199 megs, and we all know that image has to be bigger ... put it clear at the end of the disk and kept it there regardless. ... /boot swap extended partition ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Installing kubuntu
    ... I have installed Ubuntu on a Gericom laptop in where previously, ... exchange data between Windows and SuSE linux on partition /dev/hda3 ... for SuSE 10.0. ... According to all I've seen the Breezy installer detects the NTFS partition on ...
    (Ubuntu)
  • Re: Next openSUSE
    ... addressed with an identifier and not with the number of the partition. ... Windows installer is a sodding pain. ... important than the referrer is the cookies and the javascript switch. ... But - as I found out - the cache is the problem. ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Problems Installing Fedora Core 2
    ... Microsoft Wheel Optical USB Mouse ... auto detects my drives as "Ultra DMA 5" ... Installer does not set the /boot partition as the active parition, ...
    (Fedora)