upgrade to 64

[dibl]

Re: upgrade to 64

Yay! @geezer, you win the "most persistent codger for June 15" award!

It sounds like there's a bona-fide bug in the ubiquity installer on the Live CD. I've been installing *buntu since 6.06, and I can tell you that this is hardly the first bug. I spent my first two days with Kubuntu proving beyond all doubt that, with an IDE and a SATA drive connected in my system, it would never, ever willingly install on the SATA drive. (The next two days were spent trying to make it display on an ATI card -- but that's another story ....).

Some of this is BIOS-specific, too. The performance problem you observed is (apparently) not universal. I take it that Ubiquity looks at the BIOS and decides what hard drives are available, then looks at the partition tables on the drives to see what partitions are available. So if you choose to file a Launchpad bug, you need to be clear about your particular BIOS make and model, since that is probably very relevant to the failure.

Nice job solving it!

[Snowhog]

Re: upgrade to 64

Any place to report the problem?? I really want them to be aware of and FIX the problem

bugs.launchpad.net

[geezer]

Re: upgrade to 64

Any place to report the problem?? I really want them to be aware of and FIX the problem

bugs.launchpad.net

went to the link.

There is a LOT of information on how to use launchpad for a project and how to track bugs.

But no information that I could find on how to post a bug. I was able to get the search box to find ubiquity, but then there was zero information on what to do once it found the program.

Is there a way to post a bug notice for us brain impaired individuals that cannot find it on Launchpad??

[Snowhog]

Re: upgrade to 64

Yeah. Forgot about that. You used to be able to report bugs directly from their web sight. Not any more.

What you have to do, is open any application - Konqueror say - and click on Help > Report Bug...
In your case, there isn't a ubiquity installer entry, so choose unknown. But, create an account on bugs.launchpad.net first.

[apachelogger]

Re: upgrade to 64

Since Konqueror is KDE software the proposed approach will report a bug with KDE and not Ubuntu, and KDE will not be amused about that. What you should do is press ALT+F2 and enter "ubuntu-bug ubiquity" then hit return. A more in depth guide is available in the Kubuntu Wiki.
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/Bug...ith ubuntu-bug

Please also note that this page also gives guidance on how to file a bug in Launchpad directly.
https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/Bug... Launchpad.net

[geezer]

Re: upgrade to 64

Thank you Snowhog and apachelogger.

I really don't want to have to open an account to report the bug, but if I have to, well.....

I have accounts scattered all over the internet because everybody does the same thing. I suppose it is an attempt to keep the trivia at a minimum. Must be a better way. I just want to report the bug and then let them take care of it or not as they see fit. I am certainly not going to give it another thought unless they want information or until I need to upgrade from the Live-CD again. If they need to contact me they can always use email. If they try contacting me through the account that could be months before I bother looking to see if they wanted anything. email I check daily.

I just do not understand this urge by everybody to make me open an account to let them know something.

rant over.

On another note.

I am now relearning why I hesitated so looooong to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit and why I waited to upgrade to 10.04.

In upgrading to 64 bit, I now have to recompile all of those programs I have written and use almost daily and their call is buried in scripts all over the place. It's been 5 or 6 years since I last recompiled and now have to go through and re-acquaint myself with all of the arcane details that are gotchas in the makefiles.

Also, in upgrading to 10.04 the developers have nice little tidbits in the details that they have changed. For example, I have scripts to backup financial data to 2 USB flash drives. Every time they upgrade, they change the names by which the flash drives are mounted. That means when I first ran the backup script, things didn't get backed up. Fortunately this time I was paying attention and noticed that the output wasn't as it should be - oh yes - they changed the names again. More time spent discovering the new names for the flash drives and then changing the scripts accordingly.

It's these small details that they change to suit their whim of the day that drive me crazy on an upgrade. I mean does the name of the mounted flash drive really mean that much to the developer that they have to always change the default name I'm really expecting that on one of the upgrades the developer responsible for that little detail will use the name of their current (girl/boy)friend. Why not, if you are going to change it on a whim, why not use something sensible like that