[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

F11-Beta-x86_64-Live-KDE.iso = F11-Beta-i686-Live-KDE.iso ?

Not long after the release announcement I downloaded F11-Beta-x86_64-Live-
KDE.iso, burned the image to a CD and installed to my hard drive.

After rebooting I noticed that I in fact was not running X86_64 but i686.

Unfortunately I didn't notice till I'd started adding a number of 
packages and noticed they were all i5/686.

A "umame -r" after that showed in fact I was not running x86_64.

I'm not sure what happened there but rather than risk wasting bandwidth 
downloading what seemed to be incorrectly labeled images again I then 
downloaded the boot.iso for rawhide x86_64.

To make a long story short, I did end up with what I expected this time 
around X86_64 and not i686.

I had then intended to immediately check this and the devel lists as well 
as buzilla to see if anyone else had a similar experience but got 
sidetracked till now.

>From what I can find there are no bug reports relating to this and nobody 
else has mentioned having the same experience here.

To make sure I wasn't crazy, I downloaded F11-Beta-x86_64-Live-KDE.iso 
again (It was done about an hour before I wrote what you are now 
reading), but this time from a different mirror.

After booting up the Live CD I did a "uname -r" again and alas, no X86_64.

If I'm interpreting this correctly F11-Beta-x86_64-Live-KDE.iso is 
mislabeled both in terms of the name of the disk as well as the name that 
appears at the top of the GRUB menu when you first start this disk up.

Is this a bug or a feature?  If it's the former, what do I file the bug 
report against?


Now running

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]