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 sa
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
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 03:04:39PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Device BootStart EndBlocks Id System
> /dev/hda1 * 1 2349 17758408+ 7 HPFS/NTFS # WIN XP
> /dev/hda2 4695 5168 3583440 41 PPC PReP Boot # IBM
> system parti
EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge:
> debian-installer partitioning failure]
>
> > > Probably. Also, could you get the info from dmesg which
> looks like :
> > >
> > > hda: 312581808 sectors (160041
Sven Luther wrote:
> I would much rather upload to sid, and let it go in hinted, but i suppose
> t-p-u is the way to go, i never was able to do so in the past though, and the
> 1.6.9-3.2 upload Matt tried also failed.
parted | 1.6.9-3.2 | testing | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64,
o: Zenker, Matthias (Otometrics Stuttgart)
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge:
> > > debian-installer partitioning failure]
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at
AIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge:
> > debian-installer partitioning failure]
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 04:13:08PM +0200,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > -Original Message-
> &
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:41:10AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > This should be fixed in 1.6.12 for which i am preparing packages, but it
> > breaks binary compatibility, so using this is a no-go for sarge as i
> > understand, as parted is part of base, which was frozen by start
Sven Luther wrote:
> This should be fixed in 1.6.12 for which i am preparing packages, but it
> breaks binary compatibility, so using this is a no-go for sarge as i
> understand, as parted is part of base, which was frozen by start of august.
It can probably be argued that this is a release critic
AIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge:
> > debian-installer partitioning failure]
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:00:00PM +0200,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Could you provide the reported
> -Original Message-
> From: Sven Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:38 PM
> To: Zenker, Matthias (Otometrics Stuttgart)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 03:00:00PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Could you provide the reported geometry on both a 2.4 kernel
> > and a 2.6 kernel ? This is probably the infamous 2.6 geometry
> > bug/feature/whatver.
>
> Geometry reported by what? fdisk -l?
> I could boot Knoppix once with
o: Zenker, Matthias (Otometrics Stuttgart)
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge:
> > > debian-installer partitioning failure]
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:12:41AM +
> -Original Message-
> From: Sven Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:22 PM
> To: Zenker, Matthias (Otometrics Stuttgart)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge:
> debian-installer
> > Subject: Re: Status of Bug ##242114 ? [Re: Bug#269036: Sarge:
> > debian-installer partitioning failure]
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:12:41AM +0200,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have just lear
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:12:41AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have just learnt that the bug I encountered when trying to install Sarge is known
> under #242114 (Finds no
> partition table on a disk with partition table recognisable by fdisk), and is 148
> (!!) days old. Is ther
Hi,
I just have learnt from the bug report pages that the bug I encountered was also
reported in
Bug #247108: Doesn't see existing partition table
and closed. But the bug is still there! In the meantime, I also have tried with rc1,
but I found exactly the same
behaviour: the partition manager j
Hi,
I have just learnt that the bug I encountered when trying to install Sarge is known
under #242114 (Finds no
partition table on a disk with partition table recognisable by fdisk), and is 148 (!!)
days old. Is there a means
to find out what the status is, and when a fix can be expected?
Tha
New information:
When starting the shell, it claims that hard disks are mounted under /target. But such
a directory does not exist.
The hard disk is detected - but under /dev/discs/disc0/disc. Issuing ln -s
/dev/discs/disc0/disc /dev/hda makes fdisk recognize the partition table. But the
parti
19 matches
Mail list logo
