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

Bug#80325: Re: Bug#80325: how compact, vanilla and fdisk see the partition table

Hi Chris,

> I also dont understand everything you said:
>> ... The difference is that 'compact' ignores some Linux
>> partitions on the extended partition.
> Are You sure? 

Yes I am. But maybe I should have put it a little more precisely in my
post. When I invoke 'view partition table', the installer reports the
slices as 'BSD4.2' partitions, no matter if it uses the 'vanilla' or the 
'compact' kernel flavor. This surprised me because, according to Adam,
'vanilla' kernel supports BSD disklabels while the 'compact' kernel does

Therefore, I expected the installer to: 
1) report the BSD partition as just one primary partition when using the
'compact' flavor. 
2) report the BSD partition as containing 4 slices when using the
'vanilla' flavor.
3) report the Linux partitions in the same way regardless of the kernel
flavor used.

Am I missing something here?

Instead, the installer 
1) reported all the slices in the BSD partition, regardless of the
flavor used.
2) when using the 'compact' flavor, reported the extended partition as
containing just the Linux swap partition (/dev/sda9) while ignoring all
the native Linux partitions (sda10, 11, 12 and 13, in the installer's
3) when using the 'vanilla' flavor, reported all the logical Linux
partitions on the extended partition as (/dev/sda9, 10, 11, 12 and 13),
as expected.

This looks inconsistent to me.

> Did you try to mount and list contents of one of these? 

Yes, I tried this for the 'vanilla' flavor, and it worked. I haven't
it for 'compact' yet, but I don't expect to see any difference because
output of fdisk is the same for both flavors. (The point of both our bug 
reports is that fdisk, mount etc. see the partition table in one way,
while the 
installer (dbootstrap)  sees it in some other way. None of us has
discovered any inconsistencies between fdisk and mount, have we?) But I
can check this if 

> I am sure that the installer inserts 4 partitons (your 4 bsd slices)
> where(primary partition) would be correct.

I agree, but shouldn't this depend on the availability of BSD disklabel
support in the kernel?

> If you temporarily would change the type-id of your BSD partition (e.g. with 
> fdisk, t, to something like "56  Golden Bow") and see if the installer then 
> works.

I have tried "22 Unknown" already. It didn't work for me, but I don't
remember what exactly went wrong. I'll try again tonight and write

Meanwhile, take care,


Reply to: