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

Bug#228870:



> The question to know here, is if what you saw was the result of a
> mistake of yours (choosing pc98 instead of msdos), or because your disk
> was already formatted in pc98 modus. If this is so, we can close this
> bug report.
>
> If on the other hand, the presence of a pc98 partition table is due to
> for some reason or other some part of d-i choosing it for you, or
> recomending you to use it, then this is a d-i bug, and needs to be
> closed.
>
> But this distinction, i fear, only you can make it, since i am not
> really all that familiar with the partitioning tools involved in d-i,
> and i don't know exactly what you did or did not.

ok.

During the installation I didn't choose or recommend any type of
partition table.

I am not aware of a previous pc98 partition table. The disk had already
worked well under previous debian installation (and a try with a woody
installer worked).

So, probably, the partition table was already pc98, it worked with a woody
installer but not with the new one -> the old installer had a feature the
new one has not?

The other possibility is that something strange happened that made parted
think that the partition table was pc98. Rewriting it as msdos worked.

I don't know if the woody installer supported pc98 tables, so I can't
guess which one of the two is the right one. If it's the second one,
I have not thought of backupping the old partition table, so it's lost :!
and I can't think of a way of knowing what was wrong.

So I guess:
* if the old installer supported pc98 tables -> there's a bug in parted
  that doesn't read well pc98 tables (or a feature missing)
* if the old installer didn't, don't know :!

Eugenia





Reply to: