Zentyal 2.0.2 ISO install fails

[stupots]

Hi,

I'm trying to install a VM using zentyal-2.0-2-amd64.iso downloaded from SourceForge, on ESXi 4.0.  The MD5 matches, so I'm not dealing with a corrupt ISO file.

During the install, I get a red screen saying the software installation has failed.  On VTY4 I can see an error saying "ebox: Depends: libapache2-mod-perl2 but it is not going to be installed" and therefore there are unmet dependencies.

Is this a bug with this particular version of ISO?  Can I only install during a full-moon etc?

Regards,
Stuart

[eboxbuggy]

Hi,

I'm trying to install a VM using zentyal-2.0-2-amd64.iso downloaded from SourceForge, on ESXi 4.0.  The MD5 matches, so I'm not dealing with a corrupt ISO file.

During the install, I get a red screen saying the software installation has failed.  On VTY4 I can see an error saying "ebox: Depends: libapache2-mod-perl2 but it is not going to be installed" and therefore there are unmet dependencies.

Is this a bug with this particular version of ISO?  Can I only install during a full-moon etc?

Regards,
Stuart

try the 32bit version

[stupots]

try the 32bit version

Yes, that worked.  Should I file a bug report or do the devs read the forums?

Regards,
Stuart

[Motoparts]

Can you give any advice if it's generally a good idea to prefer the 32bit version? As most processors are 64bit anyway - what is the downside of using 64bit Linux? Does it have more issues, is the software less stable?

Best regards
Uwe

[J. A. Calvo]

Can you give any advice if it's generally a good idea to prefer the 32bit version? As most processors are 64bit anyway - what is the downside of using 64bit Linux? Does it have more issues, is the software less stable?

No, regarding Zentyal, both versions are the same (as the Zentyal code is multiplatform). So the question would be: is Ubuntu 64bit less stable than 32bit? And my answer is: I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[stupots]

Can you give any advice if it's generally a good idea to prefer the 32bit version? As most processors are 64bit anyway - what is the downside of using 64bit Linux? Does it have more issues, is the software less stable?

Canonical were recommending (not sure if they still do) that desktop users use the 32-bit version of Ubuntu as some third-party packages are less reliable on 64-bit (I think they're thinking of Flash), but for servers, I'd normally go with 64-bit.

No, regarding Zentyal, both versions are the same (as the Zentyal code is multiplatform). So the question would be: is Ubuntu 64bit less stable than 32bit? And my answer is: I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Not that I've personally seen, but unfortunately, most of the Linux servers in my organisation are SuSE, because we are a big Novell customer... I'm slowly convincing many of my colleagues that Debian-based distros are far superior for package management.

So in regards to my original problem, should I report the bug with the 64-bit ISO?

Regards,
Stuart

[J. A. Calvo]

So in regards to my original problem, should I report the bug with the 64-bit ISO?

You can report it, but I'm not sure if we'll be able to reproduce it, maybe it was a problem with your local mirror. You can try to install without internet connection and upgrade after the installation is finished. Anyway, a new 2.0-3 installer is going to be released in a few days. Maybe you'll have better luck with it

[tux_dvd]

Hello, i have the same problem. The install failed with the same error.

Tested on a HP DL360 G4 (2 disk in HW raid1(smart array 6i integrated raid) + 3 disk in HW raid5 (smart array 6i integrated raid) + 13 FC Disks in one expansion rack (Logical RAID 5).  In expert mode, the install failed. But, in "automatic" installation, there is no problems (but not installed in the good place for me).

I've tested with the 32bit version but the install fails too (in expert mode).

Finally, i've installed ubuntu 64 bit server and after install zentyal packages with no problems.
 
regards,
David

[momendo]

The 2.0.2 ISO 64bit doesn't finish install for me as the original comment stated. You might as well take it down off the download page since it doesn't work!