Install alongside option displays incorrect device designations
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
ubiquity (Ubuntu) |
Invalid
|
Medium
|
Canonical Foundations Team | ||
Natty |
Won't Fix
|
Medium
|
Canonical Foundations Team | ||
Oneiric |
Won't Fix
|
Medium
|
Canonical Foundations Team |
Bug Description
Binary package hint: ubiquity
While iso-testing the Maverick final I noticed that after choosing the auto-resize option the gui that allows you to "resize" using the "slider" displays incorrect device info.
First of all here's what I started with:
lance@lance-
[sudo] password for lance:
Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos
Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 1049kB 11.5GB 11.5GB primary ext4 boot
2 11.5GB 23.0GB 11.5GB primary ext4
3 23.0GB 56.1GB 33.1GB primary ext4
4 56.1GB 80.0GB 24.0GB extended
5 56.1GB 77.7GB 21.7GB logical ext4
6 77.7GB 80.0GB 2297MB logical linux-swap(v1)
That is three 10.10's, the one on sdb1 has a separate /home on sdb5, the other two on sdb2 and sdb3 have no separate /home. They all share the same swap.
During installation the gui showed that it was going to resize sdb3 to 16.8GB and create a ne16.3GB sdb4. Of course that would not be possible since I have three primary partitions and an extended, regardless this is what it really did:
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo parted /dev/sdb print
Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos
Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 1049kB 11.5GB 11.5GB primary ext4 boot
2 11.5GB 23.0GB 11.5GB primary ext4
3 23.0GB 39.8GB 16.8GB primary ext4
4 39.8GB 80.0GB 40.3GB extended
7 39.8GB 55.3GB 15.6GB logical ext4
8 55.3GB 56.1GB 730MB logical linux-swap(v1)
5 56.1GB 77.7GB 21.7GB logical ext4
6 77.7GB 80.0GB 2297MB logical linux-swap(v1)
As you can see it actually resized everything quite well. Darn impressive I must say!
So it's simply a matter of the gui showing improper info and I'd consider that very low priority.
At any rate I wanted apport to collect info for the devs, but I'll add more comments later after I get into a more comfortable modified Ubuntu that suits my vision ;^)
Overall I'm very impressed with the new ubiquity.
ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 10.10
Package: ubiquity 2.4.8
ProcVersionSign
Uname: Linux 2.6.35-22-generic i686
Architecture: i386
Date: Sat Oct 9 11:58:05 2010
LiveMediaBuild: Ubuntu 10.10 "Maverick Meerkat" - Release i386 (20101007)
ProcEnviron:
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: ubiquity
tags: | added: iso-testing |
tags: | added: ubiquity-2.4.8 |
Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu Oneiric): | |
milestone: | oneiric-alpha-3 → ubuntu-11.10-beta-1 |
Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu): | |
milestone: | ubuntu-11.10-beta-1 → ubuntu-11.10-beta-2 |
Changed in ubiquity (Ubuntu): | |
milestone: | ubuntu-11.10-beta-2 → ubuntu-11.10 |
Oops, being blind as a bat results in mistakes, this:
"During installation the gui showed that it was going to resize sdb3 to 16.8GB and create a ne16.3GB sdb4."
Should have said:
"During installation the gui showed that it was going to resize sdb3 to 16.8GB and create a new 16.3GB sdb4."
I did describe two other scenarios where this popped up at bug 655950:
https:/ /bugs.launchpad .net/ubuntu/ +source/ ubiquity/ +bug/655950/ comments/ 1
https:/ /bugs.launchpad .net/ubuntu/ +source/ ubiquity/ +bug/655950/ comments/ 2
In the second ignore the 4 NTFS stuff!
That proved to be wrong, the only real difference between the old and new ubiquity there is that the new ubiquity lacks the warning "No operating system is present" , but that's unrelated.
I have been able to reproduce this enough at this point to be certain that this is NOT serious for two reasons:
#1: If someone is really paying attention they can either choose the advanced option or quit the install.
#2: If they're not paying attention the install seems to do the right thing anyway so they'll never know.
So, I think it's largely "cosmetic". Something we should fix in Natty but definitely not worth delaying the release of Maverick.
Sorry to take so long :^(
I can't imagine mentioning this in the Release Notes doing much good but I'll leave that up to you.