Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #165431 > unrolled thread

Further to my installation error

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 20:10 +0100
    Re: Further to my installation error "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-03-15 20:40 +0100
      Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 21:30 +0100
        Re: Further to my installation error doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-03-15 22:00 +0100
          Re: Further to my installation error Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-16 19:10 +0100
        Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 23:50 +0100
          Re: Further to my installation error David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-03-16 00:10 +0100
          Re: Further to my installation error Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-16 19:10 +0100
            Re: Further to my installation error David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-03-18 22:00 +0100
              Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 23:30 +0100
                Re: Further to my installation error David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-03-19 02:30 +0100
                  Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 10:30 +0100
                  Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 13:10 +0100
                    Re: Further to my installation error Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-03-20 20:20 +0100
                      Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 20:30 +0100
                Re: Further to my installation error Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-20 10:00 +0100
                  Re: Further to my installation error Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 10:40 +0100
                    Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 12:50 +0100
                      Re: Further to my installation error Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-20 15:10 +0100
                      Re: Further to my installation error Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 17:00 +0100
                        Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 19:30 +0100
                        Re: Further to my installation error David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-03-20 23:20 +0100
                          Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 00:00 +0100
                    Re: Further to my installation error Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-03-20 14:50 +0100
                      Re: Further to my installation error Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 18:00 +0100
                        Re: Further to my installation error Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-03-20 19:50 +0100
                          Re: Further to my installation error Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-20 20:00 +0100
                            Re: Further to my installation error Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-03-25 20:50 +0100
                              Re: Further to my installation error Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-25 21:10 +0100
                                Re: Further to my installation error Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-03-26 10:50 +0100
                  Re: Further to my installation error David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-03-20 23:10 +0100
                    Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 00:10 +0100
                      Re: Further to my installation error David Christensen <dpchrist@holgerdanske.com> - 2016-03-21 06:10 +0100
                        Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:30 +0100
              Re: Further to my installation error Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-20 10:00 +0100
          Re: Further to my installation error Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-03-16 20:30 +0100
            Re: Further to my installation error Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-03-16 21:20 +0100
              Re: Further to my installation error Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-03-16 21:50 +0100
                Re: Further to my installation error Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 00:20 +0100
                Re: Further to my installation error Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-03-17 03:20 +0100
                Re: Further to my installation error Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-17 17:40 +0100
                  Re: Further to my installation error Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-03-20 13:00 +0100
                    Re: Further to my installation error Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-20 15:00 +0100
                      Re: Further to my installation error Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-03-20 16:00 +0100
                      Re: Further to my installation error Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-03-25 20:40 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#165431 — Further to my installation error

I tried another two and the second one the error message changed to "Couldn't 
download package".

Is there a problem on the Debian site?  Or with whatever mirror it is helping 
itself to??

Lisi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#165432

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:06:17PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> I tried another two and the second one the error message changed to "Couldn't 
> download package".
> 
> Is there a problem on the Debian site?  Or with whatever mirror it is helping 
> itself to??
> 
> Lisi

What's the model of the new machine?

I'm not sure that there's a problem with all the Debian mirrors: retry the downloads - instead of using ftp.uk.debian.org change
it, perhaps to ftp.de.debian.org to check.

get.debian.org, grab a CD image - myself, I quite like the CD #1 which gives you KDE but each to her own.

Quicker, because smaller, is to download another netinstall.

All the very best, as ever,

AndyC

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165438

On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:37:24 Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:06:17PM +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > I tried another two and the second one the error message changed to
> > "Couldn't download package".
> >
> > Is there a problem on the Debian site?  Or with whatever mirror it is
> > helping itself to??
> >
> > Lisi
>
> What's the model of the new machine?
>
> I'm not sure that there's a problem with all the Debian mirrors: retry the
> downloads - instead of using ftp.uk.debian.org change it, perhaps to
> ftp.de.debian.org to check.
>
> get.debian.org, grab a CD image - myself, I quite like the CD #1 which
> gives you KDE but each to her own.
>
> Quicker, because smaller, is to download another netinstall.
>
> All the very best, as ever,
>
> AndyC

Thanks, Andy.  In the meantime I had downloaded the CD1, burnt it and tried 
with that - and had the same problem, and still trying to do a net install, 
although on every occasion I had told it to re-partition and format.

So I am trying to use Gparted on Knoppix to wipe the disk thoroughly and I'll 
try in order (with a good Gparted wipe in between) Net install 8.02, CD1 
8.03, net install 8.0.0 for a minimum install.  Then, if I am still remotely, 
vaguely sane, I'll report back.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165439

On 03/15/2016 04:22 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> So I am trying to use Gparted on Knoppix to wipe the disk thoroughly 
> and I'll try in order (with a good Gparted wipe in between) Net 
> install 8.02, CD1 8.03, net install 8.0.0 for a minimum install. Then, 
> if I am still remotely, vaguely sane, I'll report back. Lisi 
While you have GParted running, why not make the partitions you want 
using that, and format them to ext4. Then when you go to install
the new system, just tell it to use existing partitions. If it asks to 
format them, you can let it--it won't hurt. That may take one possible 
problem
out of the process.

--doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165498

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:50:43 -0400 doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net>
wrote:

> While you have GParted running, why not make the partitions you want 
> using that, and format them to ext4. Then when you go to install
> the new system, just tell it to use existing partitions.

Provided you aren't using GPT, can you use fdisk too? Just create the
desired partitions, set the partition numbers for the intended file
systems (83, most likely) and then let the installer's mkfs do the rest.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165445

On Tuesday 15 March 2016 20:22:23 Lisi Reisz wrote:
> So I am trying to use Gparted on Knoppix to wipe the disk thoroughly and
> I'll try in order (with a good Gparted wipe in between) Net install 8.02

Worked a treat.  No further problems.  OS and DE fully installed and am 
installing extras like LibreOffice etc., and configuring it for the user.  It 
will be fully operational before I go to bed, as I had promised.

So - if you want to format an existing partition properly, so the stuff on it 
actually goes, use Gparted not the partitioner in the Jessie installer.  Sad.

Pity it took me until it tried to use CD1 to do a net-install to realise 
that!!  And I have now run out of writable CDs. :-(  I had just enough for 
this shenanigans!

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165448

On 03/15/2016 03:41 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2016 20:22:23 Lisi Reisz wrote:
>> So I am trying to use Gparted on Knoppix to wipe the disk thoroughly and
>> I'll try in order (with a good Gparted wipe in between) Net install 8.02
>
> Worked a treat.  No further problems.  OS and DE fully installed and am
> installing extras like LibreOffice etc., and configuring it for the user.  It
> will be fully operational before I go to bed, as I had promised.
>
> So - if you want to format an existing partition properly, so the stuff on it
> actually goes, use Gparted not the partitioner in the Jessie installer.  Sad.
>
> Pity it took me until it tried to use CD1 to do a net-install to realise
> that!!  And I have now run out of writable CDs. :-(  I had just enough for
> this shenanigans!

It is also possible that the Debian mirrors were having problems and 
were fixed on your last attempted install.


Be sure to take an image of the system drive before you put the machine 
into production.  Take another one in a few days once everything is settled.


David

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165499

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:41:14 +0000 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
wrote:

> So - if you want to format an existing partition properly, so the
> stuff on it actually goes, use Gparted not the partitioner in the
> Jessie installer.  Sad.

Is it possible for the d-i partitioning utility to sometimes make
mistakes when creating a new FS (I have only observed this with ext4,
if it even happened at all and was not a product of my imagination) and
somehow leave files from the old FS in the new over-riding FS if the
two are in the same partition?

Sometimes after over-writing an old ext4 partition with a new ext4
partition of the same size and location, mysterious files have appeared
in the new FS which should not exist, but existed in the previous
instance; "ghost files" if you will.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165594

On Wed 16 Mar 2016 at 14:49:44 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:41:14 +0000 Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > So - if you want to format an existing partition properly, so the
> > stuff on it actually goes, use Gparted not the partitioner in the
> > Jessie installer.  Sad.

I can't see why Lisi came to that conclusion from what she reported
here.

> Is it possible for the d-i partitioning utility to sometimes make
> mistakes when creating a new FS (I have only observed this with ext4,
> if it even happened at all and was not a product of my imagination) and
> somehow leave files from the old FS in the new over-riding FS if the
> two are in the same partition?
> 
> Sometimes after over-writing an old ext4 partition with a new ext4
> partition of the same size and location, mysterious files have appeared
> in the new FS which should not exist, but existed in the previous
> instance; "ghost files" if you will.

It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition, if
that's indeed what you wanted to do.

"over-writing an old ext4 partition with a new ext4 partition of the
same size and location" is exactly what one does if the partition table
gets mangled. People who do that will then cross their fingers and
hope that *all* the pre-existing files reappear. They're not "ghost"
files; they're the actual files which should be untouched by
repartitioning.

Some people really can't get on with the d-i partitioner/formatter.
At least in its curses mode, it's not the easiest interface. (I've
never tried the graphical version.) And I admit that I prefer using
familiar tools to set up my disks before installing, but that's as
much about making sure that everything I want is well backed-up first.
I don't like gparted either. Give me cfdisk for MSDOS-style and gdisk
(ie GPT fdisk) for GPT-style.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165597

On Friday 18 March 2016 20:49:55 David Wright wrote:
> It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition, if
> that's indeed what you wanted to do.

No.  I checked and double checked that the partitions on the disk which I 
wanted to use for installation were all marked with the F for format, and 
that nothing on the disk it had been told to leave alone had an F.  It kept 
wanting to format the spare disk's swap, which I did not want.  So whilst I 
certainly do not think that it did format properly, it was clearly, 
explicitly and repeatedly (all three times) asked to do so.

Since it was clearly important that the partitions should be reformatted, it 
would have been remarkably stupid of me to have omitted to do so.  On what 
basis are you accusing me of having forgotten?  That this particular problem 
has not hit you?  No, it has not hit me before.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165601

On Fri 18 Mar 2016 at 22:21:58 (+0000), Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Friday 18 March 2016 20:49:55 David Wright wrote:
> > It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition, if
> > that's indeed what you wanted to do.
> 
> No.  I checked and double checked that the partitions on the disk which I 
> wanted to use for installation were all marked with the F for format, and 
> that nothing on the disk it had been told to leave alone had an F.  It kept 
> wanting to format the spare disk's swap, which I did not want.  So whilst I 
> certainly do not think that it did format properly, it was clearly, 
> explicitly and repeatedly (all three times) asked to do so.
> 
> Since it was clearly important that the partitions should be reformatted, it 
> would have been remarkably stupid of me to have omitted to do so.  On what 
> basis are you accusing me of having forgotten?  That this particular problem 
> has not hit you?  No, it has not hit me before.

Um, the quotation "It's far...to do." above was written in response
to two paragraphs by Adam Wilson "Is it possible...if you will.", and
had nothing to do with you or your problem/situation at all. The "you"
in "you forgot" is Adam. So I won't comment further on what you've just
written above.

So why did I write "I can't see why Lisi came to that conclusion from
what she reported here." Because I read the OP which AFAICT talked
about corrupt files, checksums, and old firmware. Your next post said
the crisis was over. Your next post (new thread) mentioned a download
problem. The next post said you had the same problem as before.

At this point, you also mentioned repartitioning, reformatting and
wiping a disk thoroughly.

In the last post (which I commented on when the second paragraph was
quoted in Adam Wilson's post) you said that trying to use CD1 to do a
net install made you realise that "if you want to format an existing
partition properly, so the stuff on it actually goes, use Gparted not
the partitioner in the Jessie installer."

Maybe I'm thick, but I can't see why the Debian installer's performance
at re-partition/format/wipe would cause the reported download
problems, checksum failures, corrupt files and old firmware. Sorry.
I'm no great fan of the d-i partitioner, but I haven't had it fail to
do what it promised. (Not that I understand precisely the term "wipe".)

I'm also sorry if placing my comment to you where I did caused you or
other people to think my later paragraphs were also directed at you.
I assumed that my use of the standard ">" and "> >" conventions would
make the referents clear, and they obviously didn't. I just tried to
avoid making two posts where one would suffice. Failed again. This
post makes two.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165614

On Saturday 19 March 2016 01:27:33 David Wright wrote:
> I'm also sorry if placing my comment to you where I did caused you or
> other people to think my later paragraphs were also directed at you.
> I assumed that my use of the standard ">" and "> >" conventions would
> make the referents clear, and they obviously didn't.

Mea culpa.  I'll answer the rest later, but an apology is called for here.  It 
should have been clear.  If it was not, the fault is mine not David's.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165678

On Saturday 19 March 2016 01:27:33 David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 18 Mar 2016 at 22:21:58 (+0000), Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Friday 18 March 2016 20:49:55 David Wright wrote:
> > > It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition, if
> > > that's indeed what you wanted to do.
> >
> > No.  I checked and double checked that the partitions on the disk which I
> > wanted to use for installation were all marked with the F for format, and
> > that nothing on the disk it had been told to leave alone had an F.  It
> > kept wanting to format the spare disk's swap, which I did not want.  So
> > whilst I certainly do not think that it did format properly, it was
> > clearly, explicitly and repeatedly (all three times) asked to do so.
> >
> > Since it was clearly important that the partitions should be reformatted,
> > it would have been remarkably stupid of me to have omitted to do so.  On
> > what basis are you accusing me of having forgotten?  That this particular
> > problem has not hit you?  No, it has not hit me before.
>
> Um, the quotation "It's far...to do." above was written in response
> to two paragraphs by Adam Wilson "Is it possible...if you will.", and
> had nothing to do with you or your problem/situation at all. The "you"
> in "you forgot" is Adam. So I won't comment further on what you've just
> written above.
>
> So why did I write "I can't see why Lisi came to that conclusion from
> what she reported here." Because I read the OP which AFAICT talked
> about corrupt files, checksums, and old firmware. Your next post said
> the crisis was over. Your next post (new thread) mentioned a download
> problem. The next post said you had the same problem as before.
>
> At this point, you also mentioned repartitioning, reformatting and
> wiping a disk thoroughly.
>
> In the last post (which I commented on when the second paragraph was
> quoted in Adam Wilson's post) you said that trying to use CD1 to do a
> net install made you realise that "if you want to format an existing
> partition properly, so the stuff on it actually goes, use Gparted not
> the partitioner in the Jessie installer."
>
> Maybe I'm thick, but I can't see why the Debian installer's performance
> at re-partition/format/wipe would cause the reported download
> problems, checksum failures, corrupt files and old firmware.

No, of course not.  But continuing to use the original files, from the 
original failed installation, because they were still there, might, might it 
not??  I am open to suggestions.

> Sorry. 
> I'm no great fan of the d-i partitioner, but I haven't had it fail to
> do what it promised.

Previously nor have I.  But, after the first time, it did not appear to be 
formatting anything, and in the end the disk did not appear to be formatted.  
Note appear.  And it was by then very late and I was tired, and am not beyond 
making mistakes of interpretation at the best of times.  For whatever reason, 
when I formatted with GParted, something appeared to be happening, and the 
result appeared to be successful.

> (Not that I understand precisely the term "wipe".) 

Sorry.  It is not a precise term.  Reformat thoroughly I suppose I meant.  

I am about to install again on another computer.  Unfortunately, I can't reuse 
the original CD because I destroyed it when I thought it was faulty.  I would 
have liked to reuse it to see what happened!

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165722

On Sun 20 Mar 2016 at 12:02:14 +0000, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Saturday 19 March 2016 01:27:33 David Wright wrote:
> >
> > At this point, you also mentioned repartitioning, reformatting and
> > wiping a disk thoroughly.
> >
> > In the last post (which I commented on when the second paragraph was
> > quoted in Adam Wilson's post) you said that trying to use CD1 to do a
> > net install made you realise that "if you want to format an existing
> > partition properly, so the stuff on it actually goes, use Gparted not
> > the partitioner in the Jessie installer."
> >
> > Maybe I'm thick, but I can't see why the Debian installer's performance
> > at re-partition/format/wipe would cause the reported download
> > problems, checksum failures, corrupt files and old firmware.

I'd agree with that. Unless this stage is completed satisfactorily it is
highly unlikely the installer will progress to the next stage, getting
the base system.
 
> No, of course not.  But continuing to use the original files, from the 
> original failed installation, because they were still there, might, might it 
> not??  I am open to suggestions.

The original message from the installer was:

  Warning:  file:///cdrom/pool/main/g/gnupg/gnupg_1.4.18-7_amd64.deb was corrupt

The base system was being installed by debootstrap from the CD, not from
any external mirror.

Being under pressure to complete the task set doesn't lend itself to
considered action and burning a CD can be fraught. The quality of the
disk, the burning and the accuracy of reading the burnt disk are things
to take into account. I'd have booted the installer from something
completely different (such as a USB stick) to get a better picture of
the situation. A repeat performance would have justified alarm bells
ringing.

Success eventually came; probably because the writing and reading
processes of the CD-ROM acted correctly. Coming after using GParted was
likely a coincidence; other changes might have been factors. There is
nothing to underpin the advice not to use d-i's partitioning methods.
(As an aside, d-i has fdisk; there was no need to use GParted).

> > Sorry. 
> > I'm no great fan of the d-i partitioner, but I haven't had it fail to
> > do what it promised.
> 
> Previously nor have I.  But, after the first time, it did not appear to be 
> formatting anything, and in the end the disk did not appear to be formatted.

It was impossible for formatting not to have happened. The next stage
would not have run and a big red screen with "No root file system
defined" would have been displayed.

> Note appear.  And it was by then very late and I was tired, and am not beyond 
> making mistakes of interpretation at the best of times.  For whatever reason, 
> when I formatted with GParted, something appeared to be happening, and the 
> result appeared to be successful.

Linking the use of GParted with success gives the impression it was the
cause of the success. It probably wasn't.

> > (Not that I understand precisely the term "wipe".) 
> 
> Sorry.  It is not a precise term.  Reformat thoroughly I suppose I meant.  
> 
> I am about to install again on another computer.  Unfortunately, I can't reuse 
> the original CD because I destroyed it when I thought it was faulty.  I would 
> have liked to reuse it to see what happened!

99.9% of used CDs go to landfill after a single use. I've contributed my
share. It is unknown for a USB stick to end up in the same place after
one Debian image has been put on it.

A single CD is indeed cheaper and easier to label. It is possibly easier
to store (but not in your pocket), Parting with a USB stick is less easy
than giving away a CD, (unless the giver is the generous type).

Flexibility? About 5GB storage with the cheap DVDs. Compared with.....

Rewritable? Maybe.

Can go through a complete cycle in an automatic washing machine wihout
harm? Needs testing. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165724

On Sunday 20 March 2016 19:15:51 Brian wrote:
> Being under pressure to complete the task set doesn't lend itself to
> considered action and burning a CD can be fraught.

Granted.

> The quality of the 
> disk, the burning and the accuracy of reading the burnt disk are things
> to take into account. I'd have booted the installer from something
> completely different (such as a USB stick) to get a better picture of
> the situation. A repeat performance would have justified alarm bells
> ringing.
>
> Success eventually came; probably because the writing and reading
> processes of the CD-ROM acted correctly. Coming after using GParted was
> likely a coincidence; other changes might have been factors. 

Again, Granted.

> There is 
> nothing to underpin the advice not to use d-i's partitioning methods.
> (As an aside, d-i has fdisk; there was no need to use GParted).

I have always so far used d-i's partitioner.  I wasn't really meaning that as 
permanent standing advice.  But there may have been an odd bug in that 
version of the Jessie d-i.

If you diagnose PEBKAC I shall not disagree.  I shall probably use the d-i 
partitioner next time myself!

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165668

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:21:58 +0000
Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday 18 March 2016 20:49:55 David Wright wrote:
> > It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition, if
> > that's indeed what you wanted to do.  
> 
> No.  I checked and double checked that the partitions on the disk
> which I wanted to use for installation were all marked with the F for
> format, and that nothing on the disk it had been told to leave alone
> had an F.  It kept wanting to format the spare disk's swap, which I
> did not want.

Why not? You wanted to carry over the swap created by a previous
installation?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165674

On Sunday 20 March 2016 04:54:20 Adam Wilson wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:21:58 +0000
>
> Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 18 March 2016 20:49:55 David Wright wrote:
> > > It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition, if
> > > that's indeed what you wanted to do.
> >
> > No.  I checked and double checked that the partitions on the disk
> > which I wanted to use for installation were all marked with the F
> > for format, and that nothing on the disk it had been told to leave
> > alone had an F.  It kept wanting to format the spare disk's swap,
> > which I did not want.
>
> Why not? You wanted to carry over the swap created by a previous
> installation?

Doing that, leaving a potentially dirty swap for a new install?  No 
sensible reason to do so, format that puppy.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165676

On Sunday 20 March 2016 09:34:53 Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2016 04:54:20 Adam Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:21:58 +0000
> >
> > Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday 18 March 2016 20:49:55 David Wright wrote:
> > > > It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition, if
> > > > that's indeed what you wanted to do.
> > >
> > > No.  I checked and double checked that the partitions on the disk
> > > which I wanted to use for installation were all marked with the F
> > > for format, and that nothing on the disk it had been told to leave
> > > alone had an F.  It kept wanting to format the spare disk's swap,
> > > which I did not want.
> >
> > Why not? You wanted to carry over the swap created by a previous
> > installation?
>
> Doing that, leaving a potentially dirty swap for a new install?  No
> sensible reason to do so, format that puppy.

Am I the only person on this list who has ever wanted to install on one disk 
and leave another alone for some reason? Surely not!!  I wanted to install on 
sda and leave sdb alone.  So I told it not to use sdb.  Not to format sdb.  
Not to touch sdb.  Why?  Because I didn't want sdb touched.  I was not 
leaving a potentially dirty swap for a new install.  I was telling the new 
install not to use the second disk.  Sheesh.  When I could see I would just 
have disconnected sdb.  It would then have been left alone.  OK.

I regard that as a sensible reason.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165687

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:47:02 +0000
Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday 20 March 2016 09:34:53 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 04:54:20 Adam Wilson wrote:  
> > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:21:58 +0000
> > >
> > > Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:  
> > > > On Friday 18 March 2016 20:49:55 David Wright wrote:  
> > > > > It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition,
> > > > > if that's indeed what you wanted to do.  
> > > >
> > > > No.  I checked and double checked that the partitions on the
> > > > disk which I wanted to use for installation were all marked
> > > > with the F for format, and that nothing on the disk it had been
> > > > told to leave alone had an F.  It kept wanting to format the
> > > > spare disk's swap, which I did not want.  
> > >
> > > Why not? You wanted to carry over the swap created by a previous
> > > installation?  
> >
> > Doing that, leaving a potentially dirty swap for a new install?  No
> > sensible reason to do so, format that puppy.  
> 
> Am I the only person on this list who has ever wanted to install on
> one disk and leave another alone for some reason? Surely not!!  I
> wanted to install on sda and leave sdb alone.  So I told it not to
> use sdb.  Not to format sdb. Not to touch sdb.  Why?  Because I
> didn't want sdb touched.  I was not leaving a potentially dirty swap
> for a new install.  I was telling the new install not to use the
> second disk.  Sheesh.  When I could see I would just have
> disconnected sdb.  It would then have been left alone.  OK.

What was on sdb?

And even if you didn't want the rest of sdb touched, why didn't you
simply direct the partitioner to format swap (which I assume was on
sdb), but nothing else?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165702

On Sunday 20 March 2016 07:47:02 Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Sunday 20 March 2016 09:34:53 Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 04:54:20 Adam Wilson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:21:58 +0000
> > >
> > > Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Friday 18 March 2016 20:49:55 David Wright wrote:
> > > > > It's far more likely that you forgot to format the partition,
> > > > > if that's indeed what you wanted to do.
> > > >
> > > > No.  I checked and double checked that the partitions on the
> > > > disk which I wanted to use for installation were all marked with
> > > > the F for format, and that nothing on the disk it had been told
> > > > to leave alone had an F.  It kept wanting to format the spare
> > > > disk's swap, which I did not want.
> > >
> > > Why not? You wanted to carry over the swap created by a previous
> > > installation?
> >
> > Doing that, leaving a potentially dirty swap for a new install?  No
> > sensible reason to do so, format that puppy.
>
> Am I the only person on this list who has ever wanted to install on
> one disk and leave another alone for some reason? Surely not!!  I
> wanted to install on sda and leave sdb alone.  So I told it not to use
> sdb.  Not to format sdb. Not to touch sdb.  Why?  Because I didn't
> want sdb touched.  I was not leaving a potentially dirty swap for a
> new install.  I was telling the new install not to use the second
> disk.  Sheesh.  When I could see I would just have disconnected sdb. 
> It would then have been left alone.  OK.
>
> I regard that as a sensible reason.
>
> Lisi

The problem with that is that unless you edit fstab before the initial 
reboot, (difficult to do) to remove the auto-found swap partition on 
sdb, it will be found and mounted. But by then it likely has been 
formatted anyway.

I think my point is that its a shrug, or should be.

If you want separate swaps because you are dual booting, that isolation 
can be handled by a root edit session on /etc/fstab of each install.  
And it may sound counterintuitive, but if the install on sda uses /swap 
on /sdb, and the install on sdb used the swap on sda, the machine may be 
noticeably faster when its actually useing swap.  OTOH. I have never 
done it. I just think its possible with no side effects other than a bit 
faster when its using swap when booted to either install.

Unless your machines are really memory starved, swap s/b clean anyway if 
its not been booted long.   I'd also expect that doing, as root, 
swapoff -aRETURN should result in a clean swap being found at the reboot 
you are using to install.  Then it wouldn't matter if it was 
reformatted.  I have never believed in having anything in swap actually 
surviving a reboot anyway. At 12 days & change uptime, I show 58 megs of 
swap in use.  So this 3.16.0 kernel I'm running now is not particularly 
swappy, but it also recognizes the 8Gb of dram in this machine.

OTOH, each machine seems to have a mind of its own. So my advice may be 
for naught.

Linux it seems to me is entirely too eager to outwit the experienced 
user.  But my oar is too small to fit the oarlocks in this ship called 
linux.  Linus may have had a very good reason for making it do what it 
does.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web