https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348#c Jiří­ Suchomel changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jsuchome@novell.com AssignedTo|jsuchome@novell.com |mvidner@novell.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348#c3 Scott Couston changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW CC| |scott@aphofis.com InfoProvider|scott@aphofis.com | --- Comment #3 from Scott Couston 2011-07-23 01:12:27 UTC --- I understand you resources are limited which adds further importance to basic testing after code has been changed. This is no pressure to test the install program, or for that matter many of the faults in Networked installations on workstations as in this example where I find major problems that would never be authorised to put online. Find the Original code cutters that wrote the install programs QA Manager and ask why the installation failed since 11.1 to current - Yes nothing has bee done. I am going to document the errors as I have above, however the responsibility of making new changes, putting them online after adequate testing without taking responsibilities of the code and signing off on the module is symptomatic of the poorest standards of quality software development being obviously not tested. Until each and every new module is tested after inclusion or enhancement and released without the code cutters testing and taking absolutely and not held responsible for testing; is symptomatic of Zero Quality checks. I will not supply logs as this should be immediately reassigned back to the changes in install in 11.0 and the movement of control of Network manager from yast. There was a complete disregard of accuracy and quality testing as when released I have to backtrack to the area of development. I am here to assist in the more subtle testing of code that somehow manages not to fixed prior to release. Just ASSIGN this to the Original cutter that created the automated and non-automated updates since 11.0. If that person fails to correct it or has issues please close as WONTFIX -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348#c5 --- Comment #5 from Scott Couston 2011-07-25 03:32:46 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=441931) --> (http://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=441931) 1 of 4 Christian - I wish no harm in insulting anyone - Again my apologies for trying to convey the issue across cultural and language problems. We are a strange lot here down-under and the totally unemotional text sometimes appears cold but no malice or personal disrespect is meant and not intended. If the logs will clearly demonstrate the failure of the installation Program which differs only by not using an automated install and using a static IP rather than DHCP; tis a grim symptom of you not having available manpower. This subject of manpower and resources is the role of QA and Management dialogue and if it does not enable progress of many thousands of bug reports; closure as wonftix due limited resources is perfectly acceptable. This is out of both of our hands, but perfectly acceptable in development where limited resources have a real cost; particularly of Enterprise flow on development of the open product. I would NEVER raise a bug and state that it is 100% reproducible when it is not. Many others may claim the (default bugzilla template as 'happens every time) without a huge degree of testing. I am known at suse.de for making very very few errors and I take testing very seriously and am lucky I have a test LAN within a Production environment This bug is perfectly reproducible and would take no more than 30 minutes of resources - To appease the gods I will supply logs as I can trash one of my production PC's however, this would result in the exact same testing of you going through a non-automated install none the less to validate the log files. You always maintain the ability to either Assign or Wontfix which is never contested. I would suggest that resources are being consumed on banter and lack of confidence on the part of my testing when we both just want to produce a clean installation for both open and Enterprise that only differ in that the installation is non-automated and a static IP is utilised in preference to DHCP. There is a huge need for static IP's in just about all Network servers where all ServerClient type functions need a static IP. The configuration of all Client types by using a scan for 'Server Hostnames' are problematic at best and will not function IF no PC is responsible for issuing comms based routing tables. Using Hardware based routing and using NAT render searching of 'Server Hostnames' as impossible. Hence the total reliance of IP based searches of the Network - See attached Using DHCP with Zero config is not really reliable since a mixture of static IP's will always overrule the mapping of DHCP + Zero config. Trying to establish any type of Server/client based functions in Yast is fraught by issues arising from a mix of DHCP+Zero config and static IP's. Any static IP will remove the last mapping of DHCP+Zero config and to that PC so configured. As there is NO provision for performing successful NON-Automated installation using a static IP and if this points to the failure of testing I am not apologetic. If resources are stretched by no more than the time taken to perform typical, non automated installation where static IP assignment fails, I am dismayed. You shall have your logs and I would like it if we can solve this issue together - Clearly there are so many unforgiving and useless environments where that address of each PC is defined by IP and NOT 'Server Hostnames' If successful, and your up for the task we might try to attempt to enable a samba server, via the many GUI steps, to actually work in the absence of PC based Hostname and issues with current GUI design. I hope we can work together more profitably and without the interpenetration of any perceived personal malice or misgiving that sometimes crosses language an cultural understandings. It is perfectly acceptable to close as wontfix If resources or lack of them make your task unfathomable and I would always support this action - None the less I will be able to trash my test LAn in the coming weeks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348#c7 --- Comment #7 from Scott Couston 2011-07-25 03:33:56 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=441933) --> (http://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=441933) 3 of 4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=704348#c Martin Vidner changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|network setup broken after |[yast2-network] network |upgrading from a static IP |setup broken after |setup |upgrading from a static IP | |setup -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.