On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Adding tru64 partition table support (or fixing existing support ?) would > > > solve this issue. I have no idea want kind of partition tables are used on > > > Tru64 though. > > Tru64 uses BSD disklabels, so that the Alpha can be booted from SRM. > > According to an incomplete discussion on the debian-alpha list, partman > > should be able to handle the Tru64 labels. > > But partman corrupts those labels in such a way that Tru64 can no longer read > > them; however, the labels are 'good enough' for SRM, so that debian still boots. > This is a bug of at least important severity. Could you (or someone else) > please fill a bug report (or follow up on another bug report already filled > about this problem), and provide appropriate information on how to fix this. I have previously filed bugs against parted about the fact that it does not support overlapping partitions. This is a requirement for Tru64-compatible disklabels. Consequently, partman and Tru64 currently have mutually exclusive partitioning requirements. > Notice that the only reason i am not pushing this to RC severity is the > relative nearness of the release, but since it can cause unrelated data loss, > it should really be of this kind. Data loss in an installer is a different sort of bug than the usual RC data loss -- *any* bug in a partitioner can cause data loss. > > Really, partman would not need to be fixed if section > > > > 'A.5. Debian Partitioning Programs' > This is bullshit, since when do we believe in doing some lamentable workaround > instead of doing the right thing and fixing the issue ? Or are the alpha guys > also suffering from the debian-powerpc symptom of people liking to document > their workaround in random web pages, instead of fixing it ? random websites like <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=260054&msg=18>? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature