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

Bug#237534: inst report: lots of partman and LVM issues

* Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> [2004-03-11 19:09]:
> > Well, I just did "automatically partition" so I don't think this menu
> > option should be there again.
> It's useful if you don't like the scheme you chose, or if you didn't
> choose to autopartition, or if you edit something and mess it up, etc.

Would it be possible to only show it when it actually is useful.  In
my case, choosing it basically was a noop.

> I agree. Unfortunatly, the default partitioner currently varies by
> architecture, so we cannot call one "Partiton disks (old partitioner)".
> I am relucatant to pull in terminology the user won't understand, such
> as "Partition disks (partman)". Suggestions?

Not sure.  Maybe "Partition disks" and "Partition disks (cfdisk)"
since cfdisk might be a term people understand... but that's not ideal
either.  I'm sorry I don't have a good solution either. :/

> I've seen partman forget the selected mount points for partitons before
> too. Without returning to the main menu, I think.

Yes, I didn't have to return to the main menu either.

> > Another thing: when I was so smart not to format my root partition (i.e.
> > "do not use") the menu showed "ext3" anyway.
> It's showing the current content of the partition, I think.

Yeah, I figured... but is this a good idea?  (IIRC, I had an ext3
partition, removed it, added a new partition with approximately but
not necessarily the same size; and then it still showed ext3 - but now
the original partition would've been changed.)

> > After reboot, my LVM file systems are again not found.  pvscan
> > simply doesn't find anything ("no valid physical volumes found");
> > /dev/sda3 is of type 83 (Linux LVM), though.   Ohhhhh, probably
> > because lvm10 is installed instead of lvm2!  Doh!
> I did not see this problem. AFAIK all this is lvm10. My lvm volumes
> worked.

Strange.  Unfortunately, I didn't check which lvm was used during
Martin Michlmayr

Reply to: