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

Partman preseed for non-HD dependant configuration.



Hi everyone:

I'm working in a preseeded installation, and all goes fine except the partman preseeding.

The installer (and his preseed.cfg) should be non-dependant of the hard disk, to install it on i386 machines that recognizes the HD as hda or sda.

In the preseed example that i've been working with [http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/example-preseed.txt], -->

# Note: If you want to use whatever disk is available, no matter
# what its device name, comment the line above out. This will only work if
# the system only has one disk.
# In addition, you'll need to specify the method to use.
# The presently available methods are: "regular", "lvm" and "crypto"
d-i partman-auto/method string lvm

It's explained that if disk explicit definition is avoided (For example -> d-i partman-auto disk string /dev/sda) and the method is correctly defined, partman should take the first available disk.

In the many probes that i've done, this has never worked, and only specifying the explicit mountpoint (/dev/hda or /dev/sda) i've obtained a completely unattended installation, and i would like to avoid those explicit declarations.

The preseed.cfg that i use is the next one:

d-i partman-auto/init_automatically_partition \
        select Guided - use entire disk
# d-i partman-auto/disk string /dev/sda  <<-- ¿How to avoid this?
d-i partman-auto/method string regular
 d-i partman-auto/purge_lvm_from_device boolean true
 d-i partman-lvm/confirm boolean true
d-i partman-lvm/device_remove_lvm boolean true
d-i partman-lvm/confirm boolean true
d-i partman-auto/expert_recipe string  ... [CUTED]...
d-i partman/confirm_write_new_label boolean true
d-i partman/choose_partition \
       select Finish partitioning and write changes to disk
d-i partman/confirm boolean true


¿I'm doing somethig wrong? ¿Is possible to avoid the explicit sda/hda... definition in partman preseed configuration?

Thank you very much:
Jonbaine.

Reply to: