Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 18175 - Multi-level mount point causes install to fail
Summary: Multi-level mount point causes install to fail
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 18032
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: installer
Version: 7.0
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Fulbright
QA Contact: Brock Organ
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2000-10-03 04:09 UTC by Jim Martin
Modified: 2007-04-18 16:28 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2000-10-03 17:55:54 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jim Martin 2000-10-03 04:09:09 UTC
During 7.0 (and 6.2) install, when assigning mount points to two existing
vfat partitions, I used a multi-level mount point (read: I assigned the
FAT32 partition that Win2k was in to /balrog/Win2000). The installer
accepted this perfectly happily, but when it got to the point of actually
installing packages (a few minutes and screens later), anaconda (the first
package I was installing) blew up (refused to install). I power-cycled, and
on the next try didn't assign mount points to the Win32 partitions, all
worked fine. Did someone do a mkdir rather than a mkdir -p somewhere?

Comment 1 Daniel Roesen 2000-10-03 17:46:21 UTC
Sounds like duplicate of Bug #18032, but I'm not 100% sure.

Comment 2 Jim Martin 2000-10-03 17:55:51 UTC
Possible, but I'm also not positive. In Bug #18032, the install was default, with the only (admitted) tweek that all packages were selected. I'd expect that 
in that case there wouldn't be a multi-level mount point. We'll see what the RH guys think....

Comment 3 Michael Fulbright 2000-10-03 19:42:39 UTC
Sounds like a dupe - check your traceback against 18032 and if its different
reopen this bug.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18032 ***

Comment 4 Erik Troan 2000-12-08 19:44:03 UTC
*** Bug 18270 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


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