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

Bug#684293: installation-reports: Installer hangs at iso-scan step while mounting an extended partition



Quoting Christian PERRIER (bubulle@debian.org):

> "\n" is literally inserted in the list of devices, so mount actually
> attemps to mount "/dev/sda1\n/dev/sda2\n....". As you might expect,
> that fails..:-)
> 
> So, the patch should indeed be corrected to really build a list of
> devices with hard returns between them.
> 
> 

The attached patch works (tested). It still looks ugly to me and
there's probably a cleaner way to achieve what we want, though.




-- 



diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 88acfc8..2d80f24 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+iso-scan (1.41) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
+
+  * Do not attempt to mount extended partitions because of #684293
+
+ -- Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>  Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:37:13 +0200
+
 iso-scan (1.40) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * Team upload
diff --git a/debian/iso-scan.postinst b/debian/iso-scan.postinst
index e3c07e4..308d3cd 100755
--- a/debian/iso-scan.postinst
+++ b/debian/iso-scan.postinst
@@ -274,7 +274,18 @@ while :; do
 		mkdir /cdrom 2>/dev/null || true
 		mkdir /hd-media 2>/dev/null || true
 
-		DEVS="$(list-devices partition; list-devices disk; list-devices maybe-usb-floppy)"
+                tmpdevs="$(list-devices partition; list-devices disk; list-devices maybe-usb-floppy)"
+                DEVS=
+                # Remove extended partitions
+                for tmpdev in $tmpdevs; do
+                       PARTITION_TYPE="$(blkid -p -s PART_ENTRY_TYPE $tmpdev | cut -d ' ' -f 2 | cut -d \" -f 2)"
+                       if [ "$PARTITION_TYPE" != "0x5" ] && [ "$PARTITION_TYPE" != "0xf" ]; then
+                               DEVS="${DEVS}
+$tmpdev"
+                       fi
+                done
+
+
 		log "devices found: '$DEVS'"
 		STATE=10
 		continue

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: