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

Does potato's dbootstrap have a 2GB disk limit?



  I just came across the following comment on LinuxToday by
Charles Hixon <charleshixson@earthling.net>:
> Potato installed quite nicely. It ran well. It was easy to update. I      
> uninstalled it and switched to Mandrake.                                  
> The reason? It only supported disk partition sizes of 2GB. And not        
> many of those. I *DO* understand that this is more of an installer        
> issue than anything else, but GEE! Once upon a time 2GB was large, but    
> that's several years ago. When I tried the Potato earlier this year I     
> wasn't even THINKING that this would be a problem. I suppose I could      
> have whipped out my RH 5.2 and fdisked the partitions into the correct    
> size et al., but I'm (still) not sure just how large a partition, and     
> how many partitions, it would have recognized after reformatting. And     
> some things are too much effort to find out by experimentation.           
> (Mandrake is working fine for me, and they've reimplemented Debian's   
> idea of the automatic updater...I think I may like Debian's better,
> but not enough to switch back over.)

  Now, this user isn't very specific about what his problem was, but if it's
even close to true, it's not only a step backwards (I have a 3GB root partition
currently, created with..the 1.2 or 2.0 bootdisks (don't recall)), but a
significant problem for Debian, assuming our goal is to actually be used and not
just to produce a distribution for our own amusement.  Does anyone know what
he's talking about, and is it going into potato, or was it a transient problem
in the version of the bootdisks that he happened to download? (..of course,
we don't know which one he downloaded, but it's fair to assume that if there
was a problem of this nature at some point, he got bitten by it :) )

   Thanks,
  Daniel

-- 
"Vengeance for what??"  "For making me, by dint of your existence, into that
most pathetic of literary cliches: the evil twin." -- Fluble


Reply to: