Public bug reported:
I've discovered recently that I can't get my hard disks properly
identified by udev. I did not notice this earlier as it was working
until I tried to upgrade to 9.04 Intrepid (which failed for other
reasons causing rollback). The system originated from 7.10 from which I
upgrad
Here is info
==
># lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description:Ubuntu 8.04.3 LTS
Release:8.04
Codename: hardy
># dpkg-query -W udev
udev117-8ubuntu0.2
># ls -la /etc/udev/rules.d
total 173
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1384 2009-06-09 21:58
Here is udevadm output (see attachment)
Br Pekka
** Attachment added: "udevadm.info"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/29156386/udevadm.info
--
udev fails to create UUID's under /dev/disk/by-uuid
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/378429
You received this bug notification because you are a member o
Hello
I can confirm that for 2.6.32-20-generic kernel the "dmraid -ay" made
raid volumes active. I did not try to continue booting though.
However before I managed to get initramfs boot I needed to edit grup
"menu.lst" by hand. The maintainers version was faulty i.e.
root (hd0,0) --> should be (
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: dmraid
I tried to upgrade from 8.04 LTS (up to date 10-04-11) to 10.04 (Beta). Upgrade
fails as system could not read root partition.
My configuration at 8.04 is using dmraid with 0+1 configuration and with nVidia
chip.
Apparently the upgrade procedure
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/43796750/Dependencies.txt
--
Upgrade fails from 8.04 LTS to 10.04 LTS (beta)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/560748
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Hi,
I tried to upgrade to 10.04 LTS beta but upgrade failed miserably.
Upgrade didn't detect dmraid and as consequence didn't come up after
reboot. I downgraded back to 8.04 LTS ...
See bug #560748
Br Pekka
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 20:51 +, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Can you test with Karmic or a L
On 6.4.2010 21:33, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Is this still an issue for you? It seems to work fine for me in both
> Karmic and current Lucid builds.
>
>
> ** Changed in: dmraid (Ubuntu)
> Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
>
>
Hello Phillip,
Yep, this can be still seen in the 8.04 LTS syste
Yep, correct.
So far the installation is stable. Raid seems to be up and structures
behind /dev/disk are in place (problem reported in #378429).
Br Pekka
> So were you able to run dmraid -ay then exit in the initramfs busybox
> and continue to boot normally after that?
>
> --
> Upgrade fails from
em is able to continue booting and seems to be ok from dmraid
viewpoint. If no commands are given the boot is stuck in initramfs prompt.
Br Pekka
On 17.5.2010 22:42, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 5/17/2010 3:25 PM, Pekka Hämäläinen wrote:
>
>> Yep, correct.
>> So far the installatio
Public bug reported:
I have tried upgrade from 8.04 -> 10.04.
As the header says the libpam package fails to upgrade. Security system is
configured to use ldap.
System is amd_64.
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: libpam-runtime 1.1.1-2ubuntu3
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48975819/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48975820/VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeApttermlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibra
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: flashplugin-nonfree
I have tried upgrade from 804 to 1004, flash-plugin upgrade fails
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: flashplugin-installer (not installed)
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.24-27.68-generic
Uname: Linux 2.6.24-27
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48976215/VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeApttermlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48976216/VarLogDistupgradeApttermlog.gz
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeLspcitxt.gz
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: flashplugin-nonfree
I have tried upgrade from 804 to 1004, flash-plugin upgrade fails
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: flashplugin-nonfree 10.0.1.218+really9.0.262.0ubuntu1
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.24-27.68-generic
Uname:
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48976071/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48976072/VarLogDistupgradeAptlog.gz
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgradeApttermlog.gz"
http://launchpadlibra
So farthe fix is Ok.
- I took the karmic backup dump (from which the initial upgrade to lucid
failed) and rolled back to that
- I added karmic-proposed to updates
- I selected python-apt, update-manager-core and update-manager from
karmic-proposed
- I updated the above
- then I selected upgrade
Lets activate this one.
Today I tried once again upgrade from 8.04 to 10.04.
Upgrade was "dirty" i.e. several warnings and errors were issued, none of them
were related to dmraid. Finally upgrade went through.
After reboot the system started but failed to boot properly and dropped
to initramfs.
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: update-manager
I tried to upgrade my laptop (Acer WLMi5003), running Ubuntu 9.10 to Ubuntu
10.10. I tried to this two times but both times upgrade fails with following
information:
___
Coul
** Attachment added: "upgradeLogs.tar.bz2"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/48350028/upgradeLogs.tar.bz2
--
Dist upgrade from 9.10 to 10.10 LTS fails
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/579647
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Njah, target is of course 10.04 LTS ... sorry about confusion.
Br Pekka
--
Dist upgrade from 9.10 to 10.10 LTS fails
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/579647
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubu
Ok, although bit hard as the laptop doesnt boot normally. I am running
now in emergency console. When I give the command I can see the
following in screen
+ set -e
+ test -f /etc/apt/trusted.gpg
+ dpkg --compare-versions 0.7.5.3ubuntu7 lt-nl 0.7.5.3ubuntu2
+ set_apt_proxy_from_gconf
+ cut -d, f1
Ok. Getent returns
admin:x:115:+
That reminds me that I have ldap in use and all user exept root should
come from server. So far ldap installation has worked i.e. in older
distros and upgrades, no changes here by me specifally for this 9.10 -->
10.04 upgrade.
Br Pekka
--
Dist upgrade from 9.10
Here are the common-* files from /etc/pam.d/ directory. They are on
working condition for 804.
** Attachment added: "common-all.tar.bz2"
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/49040747/common-all.tar.bz2
--
package libpam-runtime 1.1.1-2ubuntu3 failed to install/upgrade:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bug
I am sorry to say but I can't. The system was left after upgrade trial
to so bad inconsistent state that apt / dpkg could not execute any
package operations - so I loaded 804 backup dump again.
I can try to run the upgrade once again from 804 to 1004 to re-produce
the fault. Before that I need to
This bug affects also me. I just upgraded from 14.04 and 16.04
(4.4.0-28-generic #47-Ubuntu SMP kernel) radeon driver offers only 1024
x 768 resolution. Hw is adm redwood xt (hd 5670) which can do 1920 x
1080 at least.
I can run series of tests for you if needed.
--
You received this bug notific
Here are the views, see files_101001.zip
** Attachment added: "files_101001.zip"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dmraid/+bug/560748/+attachment/1664113/+files/files_101001.zip
--
Upgrade fails from 8.04 LTS to 10.04 LTS (beta)
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/560748
You received thi
Well, I have bug 560748 open as well. What I can tell is that there
exist plenty of hd space, and I can see the log generated in the console
screen, somehow that is not written to disc. So either the bug above
prevents the log being written or then I gave popped yet an another bug,
this time
I think these are complete as such i.e. I took "dmraid -n >
pla_pla.txt" and "ls - la /dev/mapper > pla_pla2.txt" which are the
files in the attachment.
I am not familiar with internal structures of dmraid and ubiquity.
However, please let me know any detailed areas and commands, I am
prepar
BTW did you mean that I adjust the selection in the install screens?
Well, that option is not available in ubiquity either. I could choose to
set root to nvidia_bfcdciea3 w.o. problems but the swap partitions
didn't follow the partition type setting. Swap partitions are shown
correctly in nvidia_bf
I agree that lets take these problems down 1-by-1. However I remind that
there was the original problem that raids were not set active in 1st
place. So, before I could aproach installer I had to manually activate
"dmraid .ay". And that was also the probelm with 804 -> 1004 upgrade
i.e. boot sequenc
A bit continuing from #33: if we assume that dmraid is working
correctly, then the question is why initramfs is created during upgrade
wrongly i.e. dmraid does not activate automatically OR in case of live
cd - why dmraid doesn't get activated but manual command is needed to
activate raids?
Still,
Hi,
just adding two photos about failing installation; the first photo shows
that installer is correctly trying to place grup on the raid root, the
second one shows that instead of placing installation on the raid root
it tries to address one of the raid disks - apparently it fails
** Attachment
Hi - apparently my problem is more installer and fakeraid related; I've
found bug #1063429 which seems exactly the problem I am experiencing. I
have attached 2 photos showing how the installations fails. If needed I
can dig some data from the system.
--
You received this bug notification because
Here
root@ubuntu:/home/ubuntu# dmraid -s
*** Active Set
name : nvidia_bcfbcidd
size : 1465191168
stride : 128
type : raid5_ls
status : ok
subsets: 0
devs : 4
spares : 0
/Pekka
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
h
Ok - should I create yet another bug or do you know an existing one I
could contribute?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1063429
Title:
Installing Ubuntu 12.04.1 x64 with Fake RAID 1 pa
Anyone working on this?
I could dig some info from system if there is a person who needs that.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/999838
Title:
Grub install fails with raid 5 (SW-Raid)
T
Hi,
results from bootinfo attached.
** Attachment added: "RESULTS1.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/999838/+attachment/3654024/+files/RESULTS1.txt
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
h
Well - actually I didn't. I specified the /dev/mapper/nvidia_bcfbcidd
but installer didn't like that and instead placed installation where-
ever it wanted - this time to sdd. I can re-do the installation during
weekend to see where it lands this time.
--
You received this bug notification because
This is very painful problem and I haven't been able to find decent workaround
even with days reading these posts.
My system is 10.04, wifi (ath9k) and /home, and few other directories
automounted. Server is still running 8.04, ldap, nfs, samba etc. There are few
clients in my network and all ha
Ok
I created an installation media for 10.04.1. When I boot with this and
try to "install" I can't see any disc partitions. If I open terminal and
give direct command "dmraid -ay" and then try to "install" all disc
partitions are visible for selection.
So, I conclude that dmraid is not able to co
Hello,
Yep, I was probably too hasty to draw conclusions. This is the long
version what happened.
I took the normal amd_64 bit desktop distro from Ubuntu site and made
usb startup disk out of that. Then I booted without any options. At
point when "install" was offered I opted that and found m
Hello Philip,
lets discuss whether it makes sense -
I finally made the decision to roll - over my dual-boot (win7/ubuntu)
system and I installed raid 5 instead of raid 0 + 1. At this time I
could install ubuntu 10.04 without problems.
So, I am definite that since 8.04 all the way to 10.04 raid
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: software-center
no extra info
ProblemType: Package
Architecture: amd64
Date: Sat Jan 15 19:57:03 2011
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 9.10
ErrorMessage: subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit
status 1
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 9.10 "Kar
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/703348
Title:
package software-center 1.0.3 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess
installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
--
** Description changed:
** Visibility changed to: Public
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/700479
Title:
ubiquity crashed with AttributeError in debconffilter_done()
--
ubuntu-bugs ma
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: dpkg
804 --> 10041, amd64 system
- local mail server is configured and postgrey within that
- no fancy tweaks in postgrey config to my knowledge
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: postgrey 1.31-2
ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.24
--
package postgrey 1.31-2 failed to install/upgrade:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/663073
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/list
Ok, seems that this is dead end. Too rare configuration to generate
interest to be fixed. As result though Ubuntu 10.04.1 is completely un-
installable for nvidia 430 raid0+1 systems and also clear downgrade as
this configuration is working in 8.04. I feel frustrated and need to
start investigating
Hello
I tried upgrade from 8,04 to 10.04 again (latest fixes) w.o luck. 3 problems
were discovered
- dmraid don't activate raids after upgrade but drops to initramfs boot. I can
wait forever ...
- giving dmraid -ay and exiting initramfs gets boot continuing
However, upgrade was not clear either
Ok.
I have loaded 804 backup again and updated that with latest corrections.
So the "from state" is 804 as today. I will remove fglrx completely to
avoid those problems in upgrade. ATI chip is oldish, 2600 series, but
support in 804 is ok. There is separate bug-thread on this fglrx problem
(642518
Ok, some data about upgrade
- fglrx removed, only libpam-runtime gave permanent error (bug 642591)
- run initramfs and update-grub as suggested
- dmraid version in "to state"
dmraid version: 1.0.0.rc16 (2009.09.16) shared
dmraid library version: 1.0.0.rc16 (2009.09.16)
Unfortunately the system is again in "unbootable" mode i.e. I don't
get login prompt at all. However the following I recorded while I still
could log on:
- dmraid version in "to state"
dmraid version: 1.0.0.rc16 (2009.09.16) shared
dmraid library version: 1.0.0.rc16 (20
Haven't had time to do that so far. Reason for trying to get this
upgrade working is that I have a server which has very similar
configuration as the desktop pc I am working now. I know for sure that
doing fresh install for the server would kill me. On this desktop the
fresh install is of course an
Ubuntu is 10.04.1, thats the latest available.
I am working on burning the livecd (or usb) to see whether its upgrade
or dmraid. Probably doable during weekend.
On 23.9.2010 18:23, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Yes, it would be good to know if it is only an upgrade issue or not.
> Also you should be a
here is the data:
dmraid:
Installed: 1.0.0.rc16-3ubuntu2
Candidate: 1.0.0.rc16-3ubuntu2
Version table:
*** 1.0.0.rc16-3ubuntu2 0
500 http://www.nic.funet.fi/pub/mirrors/archive.ubuntu.com/
lucid/main Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 15:23 +, Phill
Ok,
now I am tried the installation againg - and I can confirm that I can't
proceed the installation as disks are detected wrongly. Attachment
Fail100929.zip xontains two screenshots. 1.png shows the disk
configuration which is in this case raid 0+1. I can set the target "/"
partition as ...ciea-0
It's raid "0 + 1". I've 4 identical discs. There is stripe across the
disks (raid 0) which is then mirrored (raid1). That's normal
configuration for that "old" nvidia chip and called as raid 0+1 to my
knowledge. As far I understand the -0 and -1 are the heads of those stripes.
On 30.9.2010 19
Public bug reported:
- Automatic logs included
- upgrade from 8.04LTS to 10.04LTS, from state on latest correction level
- lsb-release -rd
Description:Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS
Release:10.04
- amd64 system
- fglrx version (in synaptic) 2.8.723.1-0ubuntu4
- upgrade failed and offered autom
** Attachment added: "BootDmesg.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/642589/+attachment/1606754/+files/BootDmesg.txt
** Attachment added: "CurrentDmesg.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/642589/+attachment/1606755/+files/CurrentDmesg.txt
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
http
Public bug reported:
- amd64 system
- upgrade from 8.04LTS to 10.04LTS, latest correction levels
- lsb_release -rd
Description:Ubuntu 10.04.1 LTS
Release:10.04
- libpam-runtime 1.1.1-2ubuntu5
ProblemType: Package
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.04
Package: libpam-runtime 1.1.1-2ubuntu5
P
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/642591/+attachment/1606787/+files/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "VarLogDistupgrade201009190834.gz"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/642591/+attachment/1606788/+files/VarLogDistupgrade201009190834.gz
--
packag
On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 11:09 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Thank you for taking the time to report this issue and help to improve
> Ubuntu.
>
> The VarLogDistupgrade201009190834.gz logfile attached to your bug report
> is empty. Please attach /var/log/apt/term.log, which might show us
> somethi
Ok, here is the /var/log/apt/term.log for today
Log started: 2010-09-19 07:41:32
(Reading database ... 141323 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace linux-image-2.6.24-28-generic 2.6.24-28.77 (using
.../linux-image-2.6.24-28-generic_2.6.24-28.79_amd64.deb) ...
Done.
Unp
64 matches
Mail list logo
