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

RE: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge: debian-installer partitioning failure]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sven Luther [mailto:sven.luther@wanadoo.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:38 PM
> To: Zenker, Matthias (Otometrics Stuttgart)
> Cc: sven.luther@wanadoo.fr; debian-boot@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge: 
> debian-installer partitioning failure]
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:00:00PM +0200,
> mzenker@gnotometrics.de wrote:
> > > Could you provide the reported geometry on both a 2.4 kernel and a 
> > > 2.6 kernel ? This is probably the infamous 2.6 geometry 
> > > bug/feature/whatver.
> > 
> > Geometry reported by what? fdisk -l?
> > I could boot Knoppix once with kernel 2.4, once with 2.6,
> and invoke
> > fdisk -l /dev/hda each time. Would that be what you need?
> 
> By the kernel. i don't know fdisk, but maybe, also look in
> the dmesg output too.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what do I have to do to get the geometry reported by the kernel?

Anyway, here is already the output of fdisk -l on Knoppix (kernel 2.4), Knoppix (kernel 2.6), and the debian installer shell:
--------------------------
Linux Knoppix 2.4.23-xfs #1 SMP Mi Dez 10 22:25:03 CET 2003 i686 GNU/Linux

Platte /dev/hda: 40.0 GByte, 40007761920 Byte
240 Köpfe, 63 Sektoren/Spuren, 5168 Zylinder
Einheiten = Zylinder von 15120 * 512 = 7741440 Bytes

    Gerät Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/hda1   *           1        2349    17758408+   7  HPFS/NTFS
/dev/hda2            4695        5168     3583440   41  PPC PReP Boot
/dev/hda3            2350        3321     7348320    c  W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/hda4            3322        4694    10379880    5  Erweiterte
/dev/hda5            3738        3805      514080   82  Linux Swap
/dev/hda6            3806        4694     6720808+  83  Linux
/dev/hda7            3322        3737     3144928+  83  Linux

Partitionstabelleneinträge sind nicht in Platten-Reihenfolge
---------------------------
Linux Knoppix 2.6.1 #1 SMP Thu Jan 15 15:10:43 CET 2004 i686 GNU/Linux

Platte /dev/hda: 40.0 GByte, 40007761920 Byte
240 Köpfe, 63 Sektoren/Spuren, 5168 Zylinder
Einheiten = Zylinder von 15120 * 512 = 7741440 Bytes

    Gerät Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/hda1   *           1        2349    17758408+   7  HPFS/NTFS
/dev/hda2            4695        5168     3583440   41  PPC PReP Boot
/dev/hda3            2350        3321     7348320    c  W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/hda4            3322        4694    10379880    5  Erweiterte
/dev/hda5            3738        3805      514080   82  Linux Swap
/dev/hda6            3806        4694     6720808+  83  Linux
/dev/hda7            3322        3737     3144928+  83  Linux

Partitionstabelleneinträge sind nicht in Platten-Reihenfolge
--------------------------------
Linux notebook-mz 2.6.7-1-386 #1 Thu Jul 8 05:08:04 EDT 2004 i686 unknown

Disk /dev/discs/disc0/disc: 36.3 GB, 36344161280 bytes
240 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4694 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 15120 * 512 = 7741440 bytes

                Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/discs/disc0/part1   *           1        2349    17758408+   7  HPFS/NTFS
/dev/discs/disc0/part2            4695        5168     3583440   41  PPC PReP Boot
/dev/discs/disc0/part3            2350        3321     7348320    c  W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/discs/disc0/part4            3322        4694    10379880    5  Extended
/dev/discs/disc0/part5            3738        3805      514080   82  Linux swap
/dev/discs/disc0/part6            3806        4694     6720808+  83  Linux
/dev/discs/disc0/part7            3322        3737     3144928+  83  Linux

Partition table entries are not in disk order
---------------------------------------------

fdisk version is 2.12 in all cases.
Note that this output also contains some geometry information, and that there is a difference between the two Knoppix outputs and the d-i output. Perhaps this is what you looked for? 

> > > This should be fixed in 1.6.12 for which i am preparing packages, 
> > > but it breaks binary compatibility, so using this is a no-go for 
> > > sarge as i understand, as parted is part of base, which was frozen 
> > > by start of august.
> > 
> > You mean, the fix will not make it into sarge? This would
> mean sarge
> > will not be installable on a certain number of machines??
> 
> The fix should not make it into sarge with the current
> release schedule. Anything else would need an intervention of 
> one of the RMs and/or joeyh. It is out of my hands. 
> 
> > I can hardly imagine that...
> 
> Yeah, but then, a binary incompatible library upgrade at this
> time is rather over-late.

As far as I have seen, this bug is 148 days old...

What can we do to try to trigger such an intervention? Or will there be a workaround? Another partition manager in d-i? I mean, this is a really severe bug which would make Debian unusable for a certain number of people.
I hope this can be avoided...

Best regards,

Matthias

> 
> Friendly,
> 
> Sven Luther
> 



Reply to: