https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829834
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=829834#c17
Scott Couston
Scott, please attach /var/log/zypp/history as requested in comment #12. Thanks.
Sorry Lukas I did not look closely enough at #12 and thought it was still asking for /var/log/YaST2/ again. I think I will include zypp log data as a mater of course when Yast2 logs are required for other bugs. I no longer have log data that goes back to that install. My apologies I should have read more clearly. I know first online update progressed all o.k and it was the restart that halted everything but you need log proof certainly. Would you like me to redo the test on the same PC as it sits on my LAN as a test PC only to run different scenarios. I dont mind really because this is important and if I am correct, has implications on the install program that many need to test for UEFI BIOS in the same way that the partitioner does ONLY when I delete all existing partitioning and dont edit or import past mount points. I'm not quite sure why there arn't more testers with X_64 with New UEFI BIOS and Hardware and a LAN environment. Under the above test condition I can state the I did not use any type of /boot mount point as only / was used on the same physical HDD along with a /swap. I would have normally included a /home mount point on the same physical HDD but this I cannot swear too but / and swap I definitely can. This should rule out the possibility of the / mount point somehow not being available at the time of restart. It was only after this failure that I started to create a /boot mount point and to be honest I havn't tested that the partitioner issues a warning if only / is specified. Whats the deal now in needing a FAT partition for /boot and a UEFI BIOS or is that a never-ending story that the kernel guy's dont want to commit to paper :-) -- 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.