Since this is marked fix released I created bug 766265 (Natty ubiquity
proceeds to use free space without warning).
I hope I'm not just coming across as pushy.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net
BTW I tried this again just this AM by freeing up only 10GB on my drive
sdb and it worked great:
lance@lance-desktop:~$ sudo parted /dev/sdb print
Model: ATA WDC WD800JB-00JJ (scsi)
Disk /dev/sdb: 80.0GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos
Number Start End Size
I agree with you but that's not what the spec calls for:
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfkkjjcj_101gnkrpg5v#4_5_1_Automatic_partitioning_o_8475526086986065
I've beat my brains out on this, and I'm not even sure who to argue with
any more.
--
You received this bug notification because you are
Improvement! But not entirely good enough yet.
I just performed an installation with the bèta 2 CD of Natty. On a
computer with a 31 GB NTFS partition with Windows XP on it, and 69 GB of
free unallocated space.
Ubiquity installed Natty flawlessly and automatically on the unallocated
space, after
I just happened to do a couple of installs in VMs with ubiquity 2.6.5,
and this worked wonderfully. Thanks!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
Title:
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to in
I would say that this effects just about anyone who installs Ubuntu.
Glad to see that there is movement on this.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
Title:
Ubiquity doesn't suggest
Regarding the latest changes to return this option I performed a couple
more tests this AM, mostly to be sure we still handled primary partition
limits properly, and it appears we did.
But I was also curious what size free space would be considered
appropriate to allow the installation to just pro
Before I could report my last "manual install" results they'd begun a
rebuild. So, once it was done, I repeated a live test followed by two
"side-by-side" tests.
The first I did with three "occupied" (one was a SWAP) primary
partitions on sdb and no free space. The installation worked as
expected,
I just completed a successful manual install and the quit and back
buttons work as expected, so I think that's a non-issue.
I was just shocked that the partitioning (in this case just creating
sdb7 & 8) went forward after selecting the side-by-side option with no
additional indication of what the
OK testing this AM with the 03/29 i386 iso-testing image and after
choosing the side-by-side option no new window popped up indicating what
the installer was going to do, so I kind of freaked out.
At this point I noticed that the option to quit the install no longer
existed. I didn't notice yester
This is an important issue for me, it caused me to stop recommending
10.10 to inexperienced students. I'm sorry I've not found the time to
test some alphas.
So my comment may not be correct, but the feeling I'm getting is that
there's unwise effort being put in to make the installer too "smart".
I think a careful reading of my comment will reveal that I agree with
you.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
Title:
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
Daniel and Martin make a very point. It's quite likely that a person
with a very large disc might still allocate only a small bit, say 20GB
out of a 1TB disc, for Ubuntu.
I need to repeat a number of tests, like what does Ubuntu do if 4
primary partitions already exist, what happens with 3 primary
I agree with Daniel above. The existing logic as described is a bit
silly. The option to install to an unallocated partition should *always*
be available. And really, since it's the safest option, it should also
be the default (when unallocated space is available).
--
You received this bug notifi
"If there is more space free in a partition that could be resized than
is available in unallocated space, then the unallocated-space option is
dropped."
I disagree with this logic. It should not be assumed that the user
always wants to install in the largest available space (whether that be
in a p
"If there is more space free in a partition that could be resized than
is available in unallocated space, then the unallocated-space option is
dropped."
That makes sense, at least to some degree. I'll do some retesting -
probably between beta1 and beta2 - and report back :^)
Do you and Evan have
If there is more space free in a partition that could be resized than is
available in unallocated space, then the unallocated-space option is
dropped. I'm guessing that the theory here may be that you can just use
the "Install alongside" option and leave the other OS' size unchanged,
thereby reduc
** Tags added: iso-testing
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
Title:
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.u
I'm iso-testing the first Beta1 i386 image and just revisiting this. In
bug 655950 post #39 I'd asked:
"I understand this being marked as "milestone beta" and I'm sure that's
a challenge. I do appreciate the complexity of dealing with this issue.
With Alpha 2 iso-testing coming up I see no need t
This bug was fixed in the package ubiquity - 2.5.23
---
ubiquity (2.5.23) natty; urgency=low
[ Evan Dandrea ]
* Ensure we always have an automatic partitioning option selected.
* Merge in latest change to apt-clone from Michael Vogt:
- Current apt_pkg API methods.
- Bett
> Why is the status changed from confirmed to invalid?
Because we don't track bugs against the Ubiquity project; we use the
ubiquity source package in Ubuntu. The bug is still marked as confirmed
against the latter.
> Maybe I'm being dense, but would it help move this forward if "UI
isn't compl
Maybe I'm being dense, but would it help move this forward if "UI isn't
complete" is more detailed?
Why is the status changed from confirmed to invalid?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/6
This is back in Natty, but the UI isn't complete.
** Changed in: ubiquity
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Evan Dandrea (ev)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to U
I changed this to a regression/confirmed status. The "use largest
continuous space" option did add value to ubiquity, and any loss of
usability is a bug.
OTOH adding the options to use entire disc/partition to the side-by-side
option have only resulted in confusion and in many cases data loss as
I
** Changed in: ubiquity
Status: Invalid => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
Title:
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
--
ubuntu-bugs
What can I say? Terrible terrible terrible...
Instead of upgrading this, my 3rd maverick machine, from lucid, I decide
to do a clean wipe. I install Windows 7 from usb, giving it a smallish
50GB partition, leaving ~450GB free. Very straightforward. Then, I boot
up the livecd off usb, choose instal
I thought I should update this a bit because the instances of people
wiping out their existing Windows OS and/or data have clearly increased.
The following three bugs are all related:
bug 655950
bug 682429
bug 657397
IMHO we need to bring back the option to "Install to largest continuous
free
If the folks at Ubuntu think "install into free space" is too
complicated for the average user, maybe this feature could be put into
the advanced partitioner screen? Alongside the "Add..." button to add a
new partition in the selected free space could be an "Allocate
automatically" button or some s
This is a serious screw up by Canonical.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lis
I have this issue on a newly downloaded 64bit install
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ub
** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => High
** Changed in: ubiquity
Status: New => Invalid
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bu
** Also affects: ubiquity
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs
Sorry about the spelling error above. "effects" should be "affects".
There seems to be no edit button.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subsc
I cannot believe there aren't more than 14 for "this effects me." It
effects EVERYONE because the option to install using free space DOES NOT
EXIST.
Seems someone, somewhere within the bowels of the Canonical / Ubuntu dev
team should just put back what was either intentionally left out or left
out
This affects me too. IMHO this is a grave usability regression and
should at least be addressed as known issue in the release notes.
As with any new install, I spent time checking through all the known issues,
then decided to go ahead and install.
As I'm installing on a not-so-fast tablet pc, the
It affected me too.
I have been using this method since 9.10 (when I had my first Ubuntu upgrade)
and it was easy and fast.
Now I removed the partition, resized windows to the full hd and went back and
picked the install dualboot option.
This obviously takes a lot longer and is not as direct.
I k
This affected me too. I did not install 10.10 'cos the option was
missing and the installer is not as easy and clear as 10.04. Please go
forward by going back to the 10.04 style!
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received t
@DanielRoesler:
I've published a workaround with screenshots on this page:
http://sites.google.com/site/easylinuxtipsproject/partitioning
I very much hope that this problem will be fixed in 11.04.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/6
I can confirm this bug. It is actually a HUGE problem for me right now.
I didn't know this was going to be missing, so I deleted my previous
ubuntu partitions and tried to install 10.10 on the free space. Now, I'm
stuck working on the Live CD because there is no option to install in
the "largest co
KDE has nothing to do with the installer of Kubuntu, just like GNOME has
nothing to do with the installer of Ubuntu.
"This bug has been reported as "ubiquity (Ubuntu)" "
That obvious, 'cause there is no way to file a bug report against "ubiquity
(Kubuntu)".
"Of course it's interesting to know wh
@Vistaus: this is the second time that you change the status from
Confirmed to something else. Please don't do that.
This bug has been reported as "ubiquity (Ubuntu)", so this bug report
targets Ubuntu and not Kubuntu. Of course it's interesting to know what
ubiquity does in Kubuntu, but strictly
Well, before anyone can confirm it, I first want an explanation why this
bug isn't present in ubiquity of Kubuntu 10.10 They both use the same
version and installer, only the design is different, but the rest is the
same. So I don't think this is a bug in ubiquity, else the bug would've
been presen
Well, before anyone can confirm it, I first want an explanation why this
bug isn't present in ubiquity of Kubuntu 10.10 They both use the same
version and installer, only the design is different, but the rest is the
same. So I don't think this is a bug in ubiquity, else the bug would've
been presen
With three independent confirmations, I think it's appropriate to mark
this bug as "confirmed" again.
** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received this bug not
Didn't work for me too. I have a 10 GB free unallocated space and
choosing the alongside option, ubiquity wants to resize another
partition.
It would be great if some developers could explain the criteria adopted
by ubiquity besides this installation mode.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install
@CeesSluis: that didn't work on my laptop. The hard disk of 100 GB
contained a Windows partition of approximately 80 GB and about 20 GB
free unallocated space (the former Ubuntu partition which I destroyed
with Gparted).
When I chose the "alongside" option, Ubiquity then only offered the
option to
Use the option "Install alongside other operating systems" for a new
installation in a unpartitioned part of the disk.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs
The bug isn't present in ubiquity of Kubuntu 10.10, so I can't confirm
it. The installer of Kubuntu 10.10 dated October 2, 2010 gave me the
option to install on the unallocated free space.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You
The bug isn't present in ubiquity of Kubuntu 10.10, so I can't confirm
it. The installer of Kubuntu 10.10 dated October 2, 2010 gave me the
option to install on the unallocated free space.
** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => New
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on
The bug isn't present in ubiquity of Kubuntu 10.10, so I can't confirm
it. The installer of Kubuntu 10.10 dated October 2, 2010 gave me the
option to install on the unallocated free space.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You
The bug isn't present in ubiquity of Kubuntu 10.10, so I can't confirm
it. The installer of Kubuntu 10.10 dated October 2, 2010 gave me the
option to install on the unallocated free space.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You
The bug isn't present in ubiquity of Kubuntu 10.10, so I can't confirm
it. The installer of Kubuntu 10.10 dated October 2, 2010 gave me the
option to install on the unallocated free space.
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You
I would very much appreciate a reaction from the developers This
concerns a pretty important aspect of Ubiquity. And time is running out
for Maverick final edition.
@Jan Claeys: thanks for your contribution. Could you please also click
"this bug affects me" (upper left of this page) for this b
I tested this and your observation seems to be true...
** Changed in: ubiquity (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
** Tags removed: apport-bug i386
--
Ubiquity doesn't suggest to install on unallocated free space
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852
You received this bug notification bec
** Attachment added: "Casper.gz"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852/+attachment/1662191/+files/Casper.gz
** Attachment added: "Dependencies.txt"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/652852/+attachment/1662192/+files/Dependencies.txt
** Attachment added: "UbiquityDebug.gz"
https://bugs.
55 matches
Mail list logo
