Re: d-i, pulling in fdisk-udeb
- To: "Steinar H. Gunderson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: d-i, pulling in fdisk-udeb
- From: Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:52:17 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20031002075217.GH32654@iliana>
- In-reply-to: <20030930235719.GA21941@samfundet.no>
- References: <20030930175905.GD5759@sleepie.demon.co.uk> <20030930220925.GI6918@ftbfs.org> <20030930230708.GA27873@samfundet.no> <20030930233220.GK6918@ftbfs.org> <20030930233811.GA7297@samfundet.no> <20030930235251.GM6918@ftbfs.org> <20030930235719.GA21941@samfundet.no>
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:57:19AM +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:52:51PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> >> If parted-udeb is unusable on a particular platform, I'd take it it was
> >> never built/uploaded for that platform at all...?
> > Nope, it's
> > Architecture: any
> > so it's built for hppa even though it doesn't fully work there.
> Well, if it isn't usable (remember, it's an udeb, so we're only talking in
> the d-i context here) for hppa, hppa should not be in the list of
> architectures for that package, IMO.
Nothing is stopping you from creating a partition table of any strange
type you want on any architecture, as long as the kernel is able to read
them, it should be no problem. Sure, you may not be able to boot from
them, but this doesn't make them unusable.