327061 – RC1 not installable on a PC where Beta3 worked

Bug 327061 - RC1 not installable on a PC where Beta3 worked

Summary: RC1 not installable on a PC where Beta3 worked

Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 326942

Alias:	None

Product:	openSUSE 10.3
Classification:	openSUSE
Component:	Installation (show other bugs)
Version:	RC 1
Hardware:	i686 openSUSE 10.3

Priority:	P5 - None Severity: Blocker (vote)
Target Milestone:	---
Assignee:	E-mail List
QA Contact:	Jiri Srain

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:

Clone This Bug

Reported:	2007-09-21 09:55 UTC by Frank-Michael Fischer
Modified:	2007-09-21 11:30 UTC (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Found By:	Beta-Customer
Services Priority:
Business Priority:
Blocker:	---
Marketing QA Status:	---
IT Deployment:	---

Attachments
YaST2 installation logs (46 bytes, application/x-bzip2) 2007-09-21 09:55 UTC, Frank-Michael Fischer	Details
YaST2 installation logs (367.92 KB, application/x-bzip2) 2007-09-21 10:00 UTC, Frank-Michael Fischer	Details
Show Obsolete (1) View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Frank-Michael Fischer 2007-09-21 09:55:58 UTC

Created attachment 173819 [details]
YaST2 installation logs

YaST2 crashes in stage 2 when starting after entering the root password. This happens with text mode installation as well as with graphics mode. Overmore the installation DVD won't even boot without "noapic" (true for all 2.6 kernels btw). The boot parameter "hwprobe=-isa" doesn't help either. This repeats in a loop with every reboot.

However, I can install RC1 in VirtualBox on this PC when using "hwprobe=-isa"; "noapic" is not needed in this case.

We are talking a ASUS M2N-MX with a "AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3500+" here; I am trying to install 32bit openSUSE.

Comment 1 Frank-Michael Fischer 2007-09-21 10:00:08 UTC

Created attachment 173820 [details]
YaST2 installation logs

correct archive now

Comment 2 Steffen Winterfeldt 2007-09-21 10:30:18 UTC

You seem to be using xfs. If so, please look at bug 326942 and make this
one a dup of it, if it fits.

Comment 3 Frank-Michael Fischer 2007-09-21 11:30:24 UTC

Just reinstalled using ext3. Problem is gone. It IS a xfs problem so it seems. The installation in VirtualBox also used xfs, however, and there it worked. How comes the same RC1 has both a buggy and a working xfs implementation? In any case: without a fix, we should drop from supported fs list then, shouldn't we.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 326942 ***