The issue tracker has been moved https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/archiso/-/issues
FS#15729 - Respect autoprepare settings in manually blockdevice config
Attached to Project:
Release Engineering
Opened by Gerhard Brauer (GerBra) - Thursday, 30 July 2009, 12:36 GMT
Last edited by Gerhard Brauer (GerBra) - Sunday, 02 August 2009, 11:32 GMT
Opened by Gerhard Brauer (GerBra) - Thursday, 30 July 2009, 12:36 GMT
Last edited by Gerhard Brauer (GerBra) - Sunday, 02 August 2009, 11:32 GMT
|
DetailsJabber protocol:
--------- GerBra: Ah, another hint on the blockdevice setup: I used autoprepare hd, and then aif asks for the FS of / and /home. I could not set different FS for those mountpoints in this dialog. Also if i say no, in the second dialog i have again only the coice to set a FS for both. The i try if i could select a other FS by "Manuylly configure blockdevice and mountpoints" but selecting this the associations from autoprepare are stiil not regognized. I have the option to rollback or to say No there, than the autoprepare mountpoints are gone. I have to make a selection for each previous created partition.... Maybe we could handle this better: If the user says at this point: No rollback please than (if autoprepare was run) the blockdevice settings from autoprepare are used by this dialog... Dieter: makes sense Dieter: you could make a ticket for me -------------- And here it is. One of my fastest tickets ;-) |
This task depends upon
2) the "<FS> will be used for / and /home. is this ok?" question is useless. (because the user just selected that fs).
I changed it so that the user should just pick a filesystem and if he clicks cancel, then we cancel the autoprepare
3) both the interactive partitioner and blockdevice configure thing will ask the user to apply / reuse respectively already existing files if found (eg, created by autoprepare).
See:
http://github.com/Dieterbe/aif/commit/5312add5abeb5ead92ed7397c53092295f86a143
http://github.com/Dieterbe/aif/commit/887a8d1df4c4bab636023d2fd4f6ac3592318574
http://github.com/Dieterbe/aif/commit/c28ba0b578cb72bd6606dd5afb465dd25f3be1be
now we should test this
We have found a additional problem when changing something a second one. See
FS#15753Should we make this report related to the other report and also as due in version 2009.11-alpha?