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

Bug#269036: Sarge: debian-installer partitioning failure



On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 08:43:35PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 02 December 2004 15:28, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
> > Notice that hda7 and hda8 start before the end of hda6.  This partition
> > table is broken (some partitioning tools are making such partition
> > tables) and in order to be safe the partitioning program of the
> > installer refuses to work with it.  If you remove hda7 and hda8 the
> > problem (I hope) will disappear.
> 
> Well....
> Actually, partman does just that itself if you for instance delete a large 
> partition that's not on the end of the disk and create one or two new 
> partitions in it's place.

Hm, I wasn't clear enough.  The problem is not that the partitions are
not numbered acording to their disk order.

   Device Boot    Start       End    Blocks   Id  System
/dev/hda1   *         1      2349  17758408+   7  HPFS/NTFS         
/dev/hda2          4695      5168   3583440   41  PPC PReP Boot
/dev/hda3          2350      3321   7348320    c  Win95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/hda4          3738      4694   7234920    f  Win95 Ext'd (LBA)
/dev/hda5          3738      3805    514048+  82  Linux swap
/dev/hda6          3806      4694   6720808+  83  Linux 
/dev/hda7          3738      3738        30+  83  Linux
/dev/hda8          3806      3806        31   83  Linux

Notice that hda7 is inside hda5 and hda8 is inside hda6.  The start and
the end here are measured in cylinders, so although I can not be sure, I
suppose that hda7 and hda8 lay in the first track of the first cylinder
of hda5 and hda6.  Parted is not happy with such partitions so it is
possible that this bug is the same as #242114, #258880, #263208 and
#268580.

Now I remember that parted allows creation of partitions in this
forbiden area but partman has internal protection against this.  I
suppose that the partitioning tools of Mandrake and SuSE do not have
such a protection.

Anton Zinoviev






Reply to: