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.
