On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 11:00:46AM +0100, Nils Juergens wrote: > On Thu, 25.11.04, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 11:22:34PM +0100, Nils Juergens wrote: > > > Anyway, it seems the that the strange additional partition of type ff, which > > > was created by the partitioning software, triggered the problem. > > > > Yes, this is a duplicate of bug #267727. > Ah yes. Somehow i wasn't able to find that in the BTS (which takes some time > getting used to, but i'm working on it :-) ) Shouldn't this bug have been > tagged 'd-i'? Perhaps; I'm not sure what the policy is for d-i tags on packages that are entirely part of the installer, like partman. > > Indeed, it is in fact specific to the "multi-user workstation" > > autopartitioning recipe. Frankly, I'm not inclined to ever use that recipe > > anyway on any arch, regardless of the purpose of the machine; if I need that > > many distinct partitions I certainly intend to control their sizes > > personally. > Actually I found the recipe quite usefull, especially because I intended to > split the rather large home partition later, using LVM. I would have loved > to set up the home partition as a PV, but it seems that partman doesn't know > anything about partition type 8e (Linux LVM) on bds disklables (is this a > known bug, too?. If not, do you want a full bugreport?). "partition type 8e" is a partition type specific to DOS partition tables (possibly supported by GPT now as well, I don't know how many of the identifiers GPT inherits from DOS). There is no corresponding partition identifier for BSD disklabels; I have no idea what it would take to be able to standardize these things for Linux use on BSD disklabels, but there's apparently not enough interest in alpha anymore for this to have been started from the kernel end. A bug report (probably against package: kernel) shouldn't hurt. > But if you feel that "multi-user workstation" is useless and not going to be > fixed, why not remove it completely? Well, mine is just one opinion; I guess some people find it useful on other archs, so I can't argue that it should be removed altogether -- and removing it from just one architecture isn't possible either, the recipe can only be overridden, not removed. > > Joey, can this be added to the RC2 errata for alpha if it isn't there already? > Where would I find this arc-specific errata? I was only able to find the > general one at http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/errata That errata page includes architecture-specific errata as well. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature