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

Bug#414333: marked as done (debian-installer: Creating a RAID physical volume on i386 does not set the type to 0xfd)



Your message dated Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:28:49 +0100
with message-id <200703111328.49705.elendil@planet.nl>
and subject line Bug#414333: debian-installer: Creating a RAID physical volume on i386 does not set the type to 0xfd
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-installer
Version: today's testing
Severity: normal

The defined i386 partition type for software RAID is 0xfd.  Creating a RAID
physical volume does not set the type to 0xfd, but the code to create a MD
expects to see that type.

To solve this problem I had to go to another VT and manually change the type
from 0x83 to 0xfd and after that everything worked correctly.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-3-xen-686
Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sunday 11 March 2007 00:16, Russell Coker wrote:
> The defined i386 partition type for software RAID is 0xfd.  Creating a
> RAID physical volume does not set the type to 0xfd, but the code to
> create a MD expects to see that type.
>
> To solve this problem I had to go to another VT and manually change the
> type from 0x83 to 0xfd and after that everything worked correctly.

This was a minor syntax error in a script introduced with a recent change. 
Should already be fixed in current images.

Cheers,
FJP

--- End Message ---

Reply to: