http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792#c2 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Graul --- Created attachment 797073 --> http://bugzilla.suse.com/attachment.cgi?id=797073&action=edit grub installation step error message -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792#c3 David Diaz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |agraul@suse.com, | |dgonzalez@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(agraul@suse.com) --- Comment #3 from David Diaz --- Hi Alexander, Thank you for your report. Could you please also attach the YaST logs. To collect them simply type `save_y2logs`. They will provide us more information which, probably, will easy the debugging process. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792#c5 --- Comment #5 from Steffen Winterfeldt --- Thanks. The error messages are wrong, as the setup is correct (and it works). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792#c6 --- Comment #6 from Steffen Winterfeldt --- Here's what happens: the setup is spread over two disks. For booting you need at least *one* bios boot partition (it's on the 1st disk). The bootloader code however checks for/expects a bootable setup on *all* disks covered by LVM. I think that (1) the storage proposal code and the bootloader should align their expectations (2) in this case a bios boot partition on *one* disk should be enough as the LVM setup won't work without both disks anyway (3) it would be different for, say, a raid1 setup where one disk might fail and a valid boot config would be desired on all disks constituting the raid As a side note: (4) Why is by-path used for device names here? Tracking in YaST Scrum board. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792 http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1125792#c8 Josef Reidinger changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Josef Reidinger --- fix merged -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.