installer crashed

[philipp]

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/ubiquity", line 130, in ?
    install(sys.argv[1])
  File "/usr/bin/ubiquity", line 55, in install
    ret = wizard.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 266, in run
    self.process_step()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 741, in process_step
    self.mountpoints_to_summary()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 1029, in mountpoints_to_summary
    self.progress_loop()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 538, in progress_loop
    raise RuntimeError, ("Install failed with exit code %s; see "
RuntimeError: Install failed with exit code 1; see /var/log/installer/syslog and /var/log/syslog

[philipp (philipp-sutter)]

/var/log/syslog
as asked for.

[philipp (philipp-sutter)]

/var/log/partman

[philipp (philipp-sutter)]

/var/log/installer/syslog

[pmullor (pmullor)]

On my computer, installer crashed when finishing the installation. On the progress bar I see : "Configuring boot loader...". The progress bar is 96% (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaGGGGGGGGGggggggggggggggg).
I have same error message as submitter :

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/ubiquity", line 130, in ?
    install(sys.argv[1])
  File "/usr/bin/ubiquity", line 55, in install
    ret = wizard.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 266, in run
    self.process_step()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 741, in process_step
    self.mountpoints_to_summary()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 1029, in mountpoints_to_summary
    self.progress_loop()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 538, in progress_loop
    raise RuntimeError, ("Install failed with exit code %s; see "
RuntimeError: Install failed with exit code 1; see /var/log/installer/syslog and /var/log/syslog

[pmullor (pmullor)]

as requested

[pmullor (pmullor)]

as requested

[pmullor (pmullor)]

I successfully reinstalled, but with the following changes :

1. instead of mounting /dev/hda3 on /home, I let the installer put it on /media/hda3

2. instead of using XFS for /dev/hda2 and hda3, i formatted with ext3

3. I unchecked the formatting checkbox for the '/' partition (/dev/hda2) on the last menu with the mount points.

Hope it helps.

[pmullor (pmullor)]

oh, I forgot, I chose a different password too

[versiliberi (versiliberi)]

I have the same problem. I can't install because installer crashes on final step, reporting the same bug.

[versiliberi (versiliberi)]

I successfully reinstalled changing root filesystem from xfs to reiserfs.
Hope it helps.

[sk545 (khu)]

I get the same:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/ubiquity", line 130, in ?
    install(sys.argv[1])
  File "/usr/bin/ubiquity", line 55, in install
    ret = wizard.run()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 266, in run
    self.process_step()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 741, in process_step
    self.mountpoints_to_summary()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 1029, in mountpoints_to_summary
    self.progress_loop()
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 538, in progress_loop
    raise RuntimeError, ("Install failed with exit code %s; see "
RuntimeError: Install failed with exit code 1; see /var/log/installer/syslog and /var/log/syslog

[sk545 (khu)]

reguested log

[sk545 (khu)]

installer syslog

[sk545 (khu)]

partman log

[sk545 (khu)]

i can almost gurantee its a that old "will stay in forever" bug with XFS and grub. My, i think that will never get resolved.

[Johnny Jelinek IV (johnnyjiv)]

mine crashed too:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/ubiquity/frontend/gtkui.py", line 696, in on_next_clicked
    gtk.main_quit()
RuntimeError: called outside of a mainloop

[sk545 (khu)]

yep, its xfs+grub alright. Just reinstall and don't use xfs as a filesystem. I used reiserfs, and that installed the system just fine.

[Manuel López-Ibáñez (manuellopezibanez)]

It is not appropriate for the reporter to set the severity value.

[Manuel López-Ibáñez (manuellopezibanez)]

confirmed by other users

[Manuel López-Ibáñez (manuellopezibanez)]

Please check bug 48111 and bug 48110 and confirm whether they match your problem. Also, please, search in the Ubuntu bugs database https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bugs for bugs similar to yours. Duplicated reports only make the fixing effort more difficult and tedious. Thanks for your collaboration.

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

For the record, all you guys tagging stuff onto this bug need to file separate bugs in future rather than tagging onto an existing one. It so happens you got lucky and they're all the same bug, though. :-)

Please do not follow manu's directions in this case. For Ubiquity, I actively prefer duplicate bugs over bugs like this one that have lots of people all posting logs that at best only represent the same bug by luck; telling whether your Ubiquity bug is a duplicate of an existing one is not always at all easy so it is not wise to tell people to search for duplicates in this case.

Thanks for your report. You need to use a non-XFS root filesystem or create a non-XFS /boot filesystem. Bug 47848 is filed to note that the partitioner should warn you about this up-front.

[Manuel López-Ibáñez (manuellopezibanez)]

@ Colin, sorry, I was just following common practice. I hope I haven't caused too much trouble. I was having doubts about whether the bugs were or were not duplicates and thus I abstained from marking them.

On the other hand, I think it makes sense that if your log (or crash or backtrace) looks pretty similar there is no need to post it yet again. If it looks quite different, then it may be a different bug, so again, no need to post duplicate logs. Perhaps we should put this somewhere in the wiki...

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

manu: in general, you're right, but my experience is that people not intimately familiar with Ubiquity code cannot reliably tell whether their bug "looks pretty similar" closely enough to determine accurately whether it's a duplicate or not. (This is not intended to be patronising; after all, why should people other than developers have to acquire this kind of skill?) The result of not requesting that people file fresh bugs on Ubiquity has historically been bugs that contain a mess of multiple different issues.

I have no problem with collecting a set of known issues with Ubiquity that are described in higher-level terms than tracebacks and logs. I've made a start at this in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DapperReleaseNotes/UbiquityKnownIssues.

[Manuel López-Ibáñez (manuellopezibanez)]

From my deeply ignorance of the particularities of Ubiquity, I think it should produce crashing info and logs that look different for different issues and similar for similar ones, since this will allow users and casual bugzilla janitors (like me) to contribute to the bug squashing. Otherwise, all the weight relies on the developers.

That said, the wiki page is a very good start, should I link it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures ?

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 09:50:17AM -0000, manu wrote:
> From my deeply ignorance of the particularities of Ubiquity, I think it
> should produce crashing info and logs that look different for different
> issues and similar for similar ones, since this will allow users and
> casual bugzilla janitors (like me) to contribute to the bug squashing.

Yes, I'm sure it probably should. It also shouldn't ever crash in the
first place, which is higher on my priority list. ;-)

> That said, the wiki page is a very good start, should I link it from
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DebuggingProcedures ?

I already have.

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

(Actually, I linked the DebuggingUbiquity page, which is oriented more towards developers and bug triagers than towards users.)

[sk545 (khu)]

>Thanks for your report. You need to use a non-XFS root
> filesystem or create a non-XFS /boot filesystem. Bug 47848
>is filed to note that the partitioner should warn you about
>this up-front.

The partitioner never gave any sort of warning, i tried it like three times. How big does the /boot filesystem need to be and what filesystem is recommended for it?

Thanks.

[Manuel López-Ibáñez (manuellopezibanez)]

@Colin,

I think the DebuggingUbiquity is quite fine for users to identify what their problem is and whether is new or not.

[Manuel López-Ibáñez (manuellopezibanez)]

@khurram

There is no warning because there is a bug 47848. I am not sure how big the /boot filesystem needs to be, if it doesn't tell you (or it doesn't warn you that it is too small), then it seems to me that you should open a new bug report. I am not sure how big it should be. Ext2 or Ext3 are good filesystems for /boot. Backup your data anyway. :)

[Colin Watson (cjwatson)]

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 12:52:39PM -0000, khurram wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >Bug 47848 is filed to note that the partitioner should warn you about
> >this up-front.
>
> The partitioner never gave any sort of warning, i tried it like three
> times.

As I just said, there is a bug report filed about the fact that it
doesn't warn you.

> How big does the /boot filesystem need to be and what filesystem
> is recommended for it?

I'd use 100MB and ext3, personally. Up to you though.

[sk545 (khu)]

>As I just said, there is a bug report filed about the fact that it
>doesn't warn you.

Oh, sorry, i read the statement wrong.

[pmullor (pmullor)]

Guys, your babbling is generating so much emails that I call this SPAM, geez!
Please post something *really* new or update the problem status but if you want to start a love relationship, a forum is definitely not made for this...

[sk545 (khu)]

>As I just said, there is a bug report filed about the fact that it
>doesn't warn you.

Oh, sorry, i read the statement wrong.