It's not upto buildd admins, it's upto packages-arch-specific[1]
maintainers (cc:'d).
Please change the atari-fdisk p-a-s entry to match what's on the
package sources:
amiga-fdisk-cross: !m68k !poweprc #
Everything but m68k/ppc
amiga
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> could the buildd admins please enable building for amiga-fdisk and upload
> the resulting packages (powerpc has been built, but it seems it was never
> uploaded).
First off, debian-ports is not the right contact ad
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 08:52:31PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> could the buildd admins please enable building for amiga-fdisk and upload
> the resulting packages (powerpc has been built, but it seems it was never
> uploaded).
It's not upto buildd admins, it's upto pac
Hi,
could the buildd admins please enable building for amiga-fdisk and upload
the resulting packages (powerpc has been built, but it seems it was never
uploaded).
thanks,
Christian
- Forwarded message from Martin Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Subject: Bug#497165: amiga-fdisk-cross
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:10:51PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Why isn't there a fdisk utility available in the shell that d-i spawns?
> >
> > There's parted, but that's not it :)
>
> Oddly enough, I see
>
> /cdrom/pool/main/u/util-linux/fdis
On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 03:04:54PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Why isn't there a fdisk utility available in the shell that d-i spawns?
>
> There's parted, but that's not it :)
Oddly enough, I see
/cdrom/pool/main/u/util-linux/fdisk-udeb_2.12r-19_sparc.udeb
Yet the &q
Hi,
Why isn't there a fdisk utility available in the shell that d-i spawns?
There's parted, but that's not it :)
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear listmembers,
given partition sizes beyond 1 TByte fdisk displays nonsense (i. e. negative
numbers) on sparc (at least). I have prepared and tested a small patch to cope
with this (up to 2 TByte, at last). Can someone tell me whom to send the patch
to?
Maintainers for the sparc portion were
Dear listmembers,
I use a raid-array with the following configuration: CHS 145890/254/63
what causes fdisk (fdisk -v gives v2.12) to generate a wraparound (I assume it
is caused by the 1 TByte boundary:
/dev/sda1 01 32256 83 Linux native
/dev/sda2 1 642032128
On Saturday 29 May 2004 13:31, Erwan MAS wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 09:50:38AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> [../..]
>
> | > the first 512 byte of /dev/hda and the 512 byte of /dev/hda1 are
> | > identical .
> |
> | That's the case if hda1 starts at cylinder 0. And it is unlike the
> | PC w
Philippe Troin wrote:
Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sure? I killed my U2 with / starting at 0 when I updated silo.
I had to reinstall, and now the partition begins at 0, and I had no
trouble anymore.
AFAIK, starting at cyl 0 is correct.
It is. I offer as proof a
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 09:50:38AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
[../..]
| > the first 512 byte of /dev/hda and the 512 byte of /dev/hda1 are
| > identical .
|
| That's the case if hda1 starts at cylinder 0. And it is unlike the PC
| where the first 512 bytes (the MBR) is not part of any partition
Frederik Schueler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 09:50:38AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > > the partition must be start at cyl. 0 or at cyl. 1 ?
> >
> > Cylinder 0, if you're you going to use silo.
>
> Sure? I killed my U2 with / starting at 0 when I updated si
Hi,
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 09:50:38AM -0700, Philippe Troin wrote:
> > the partition must be start at cyl. 0 or at cyl. 1 ?
>
> Cylinder 0, if you're you going to use silo.
Sure? I killed my U2 with / starting at 0 when I updated silo.
I had to reinstall, and now the partition begins at 0, and
Erwan MAS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello ,
>
> I don't understand something in the sparc version of fdisk .
>
> fdisk -l /dev/hda
>
> /dev/hda1 0 406204624 83 Linux native
> /dev/hda2 u406 3453 1535688 82 L
Hello ,
I don't understand something in the sparc version of fdisk .
fdisk -l /dev/hda
/dev/hda1 0 406204624 83 Linux native
/dev/hda2 u406 3453 1535688 82 Linux swap
/dev/hda3 0 12019 60575765 Whole disk
/dev/hda4
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/ide/hdc/model
> Maxtor 6Y120L0
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ cat /proc/ide/hdc/geometry
> physical 238216/16/63
> logical 238216/16/63
>
>
> But fdisk doesn't want to let me specify a custom geometry (typi
$ cat /proc/ide/hdc/geometry
physical 238216/16/63
logical 238216/16/63
But fdisk doesn't want to let me specify a custom geometry (typing ?
doesn't do anything) :
thething:/home/nath# fdisk -v
fdisk v2.11n
thething:/home/nath# fdisk /dev/hdc
[...]
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 10:33:26PM +0200, Rafael Pinilla wrote:
> Wath is the 'mountable flag'
> Is it in relation to the 'boot flag' in i386 arch ?
It's mainly a legacy Solaris flag, and no it has nothing to do with
bootable. Any partition is bootable.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Lin
Wath is the 'mountable flag'
Is it in relation to the 'boot flag' in i386 arch ?
Rafael
--
--
Dr Rafael Pinilla Médecin
mail://[EMAIL PROTECTED]Linux addict since 1992
http://www.newsmedicales.com L'actualité m
Hello *,
I have a little trouble partitioning my disks with
fdisk on a SparcStation 5. First I add an _empty_ Sun
disklabel with 's'. Autoconfigure doesnt work so it
take custom. After that I have a disklabel, but thats
not empty. There is a swap and a native partition on
it. Because I
I realize the write error is somewhat normal but after reboot the
partition isn't there. Thoughts? Things I should try? This is on a U2.
boaz:~# uname -a
Linux boaz 2.4.19 #1 SMP Sat Oct 5 16:03:12 EDT 2002 sparc64 unknown
unknown GNU/Linux
boaz:~# fdisk /dev/sda
Command (m for hel
Kent West wrote:
Marco Rodriguez wrote:
Somebody, can send me a fdisk -l /dev/hda
please
TIA
Disk /dev/hda (Sun disk label): 16 heads, 63 sectors, 38790 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes
Device FlagStart EndBlocks Id System
/dev/hda1 0
Marco Rodriguez wrote:
Somebody, can send me a fdisk -l /dev/hda
please
TIA
Disk /dev/hda (Sun disk label): 16 heads, 63 sectors, 38790 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes
Device FlagStart EndBlocks Id System
/dev/hda1 010 5040
Somebody, can send me a fdisk -l /dev/hda
please
TIA
--
Marco Rodriguez M.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
U. Bio Bio Conce.
s up exactly and try to remount the partitions once you
> reconfigure. I would backup your important stuff before attempting
> this, though :)
>
> the r flag means the partition is mountable...not an issue. you can
> turn it off and on using the "c" option in fdisk if yo
he
numbers up exactly and try to remount the partitions once you
reconfigure. I would backup your important stuff before attempting
this, though :)
the r flag means the partition is mountable...not an issue. you can
turn it off and on using the "c" option in fdisk if you do not like it
t
Thank you Tom for your answer. (Also to Hakan for his one, I
subscribe his question about the 'r'-Flag meaning).
Maybe I didn't understand well how I have to proceed. In fact
starting from the situation:
--
Device FlagStart
On Tue, 2001-09-11 at 13:12, Roberto Giorgetti wrote:
> --
>Device FlagStart EndBlocks Id System
> /dev/hda1 r 0 8322 4194288 83 Linux native
> /dev/hda2 8322 8842262080 82 Lin
Hello,
first of all my condolence to all U.S. citizens, I still can not believe what
happend.
Quoting Roberto Giorgetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The 9Gb disk of my SUN Ultra 5 machine with Debian unstable is
> not completely used, so I run fdisk /dev/hda and p command
The 9Gb disk of my SUN Ultra 5 machine with Debian unstable is
not completely used, so I run fdisk /dev/hda and p command
receiving:
--
Disk /dev/hda (Sun disk label): 16 heads, 63 sectors, 16706
cylinders
Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Ari Heitner wrote:
>
> > Hmm, Linux's fdisk can handle things just fine, if you're willing to kill
> > some
> > Sun slices to make room for Linux. This seems to be the logical thing to
> >
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Ari Heitner wrote:
> Hmm, Linux's fdisk can handle things just fine, if you're willing to kill some
> Sun slices to make room for Linux. This seems to be the logical thing to
> do: copy the data from a slice or two to somewhere else, change Solaris's
; the expert in Unix :-D]
>
> So, where could I find a "quickstart guide" for how to repartition with
> SunOS fdisk?
> (after that, "boot cdrom" and that's all, isn't it? ;-)
Hmm, Linux's fdisk can handle things just fine, if you're willing to
" for how to repartition with
SunOS fdisk?
(after that, "boot cdrom" and that's all, isn't it? ;-)
I mean, I need a kind of "Linux-to-SunOS-HOWTO".
Many thanks. All the best.
carlos
Hello,
I have a problem with fdisk on my Ultra 10. My system is a woody debian,
with kernel 2.2.18pre21, fdisk from util-linux 2.10q-1.
At the installation, I have create only 2 partitions : hda1 with 2GB
ext2 for root, and hda2 with 128 MB for swap. (OK, I have also hda3
which is the Whole disk
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Btw, how other arches (alpha, ppc, m68k, ...) are supposed to work with non
> native partition formats ? Is there a need for such a scheme for them ?
> Or is it just an artifact of sparc fdisk that also support i386 partitions?
I dunno.
Jean-Paul Blaquiere wrote:
> > On Dec 14, Eric Delaunay scrawled :
>
> > Btw, how other arches (alpha, ppc, m68k, ...) are supposed to work with non
> > native partition formats ? Is there a need for such a scheme for them ?
> > Or is it just an artifact of sparc f
> On Dec 14, Eric Delaunay scrawled :
> Btw, how other arches (alpha, ppc, m68k, ...) are supposed to work with non
> native partition formats ? Is there a need for such a scheme for them ?
> Or is it just an artifact of sparc fdisk that also support i386 partitions?
>
alph
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Eric Delaunay wrote:
> > Hmm, this thread is too repetitive. I propose to fix the installer to
> > enfore a
> > Sun disklabel on the disk.
> > I guess it could be fixed in either 2 ways:
> > - add some obscure option to fdisk tell
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 04:29:28PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > It seems the new util-linux provides fdisk for sparc. Is this a good fdisk?
> > If yes, should util-linux conflict & replace the
On Mon, Nov 15, 1999 at 04:29:28PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems the new util-linux provides fdisk for sparc. Is this a good fdisk?
> If yes, should util-linux conflict & replace the old fdisk package on
> sp
Hello,
It seems the new util-linux provides fdisk for sparc. Is this a good fdisk?
If yes, should util-linux conflict & replace the old fdisk package on
sparc ?
--
Madarasz Gergely [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's practically impossible to look at a pe
Hello,
since slink release, fdisk & hwclock are provided by util-linux.
It conflicts & replaces the old fdisk & clock packages I maintained a long time
ago because util-linux 2.7 did not include them.
However, I just discovered that these packages were not removed from the
archive
even with
gzipping the tar file, it was still too big to fit on either of the final
two partitions, so I decided to consolidate them into a single partition.
Problem is that I get the following error message every time I try to
write the updated partition table from fdisk:
Calling ioctl() to re
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, the next step will be to create the base archive. Then I will need libc6
> versions of packages not already rebuilt.
> Especially, is anyone working on dpkg ? perl ?
I'm happy to to do perl (have ported it elsewhere before). Only problem is
I'm no
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>BTW, the next step will be to create the base archive. Then I will need libc6
>versions of packages not already rebuilt.
>Especially, is anyone working on dpkg ? perl ?
I got dpkg to compile decently. I'll have a final look at it and make sure
everythin
ill need libc6
versions of packages not already rebuilt.
Especially, is anyone working on dpkg ? perl ?
Bye.
PS: I've packaged procps & fdisk. I will upload them along with boot-floppies.
--
Eric Delaunay | "La guerre justifie l'existence des militaires.
[EMAI
(from
kernel-package 3.53) to support SILO instead of LILO.
I'm also working on new bootdisks but some packages/files are missing.
Especially there is no fdisk. Anyone want to package fdisk for sparc ?
(consider getting fdisk-2.5-1.src.rpm from RedHat).
Yesterday I packaged ash, cpio & ut
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Even if the msdos fs is compiled into the kernel, the installation will fail
> because resc1440.bin have to be mounted through the loop service and this one
> fails if the image to mount is on nfs partition.
Oh, joy... Well, I'm past that point anyway (
Stephen Zander wrote:
>
> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm now further into this install (being done on a part-time basis)
> > and am curious about something:
> >
> > Why do swapsetup, dinstall & co run as nobody?
>
> Don't ya love talking to yourself
>
> After actuall
Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm now further into this install (being done on a part-time basis)
> and am curious about something:
>
> Why do swapsetup, dinstall & co run as nobody?
Don't ya love talking to yourself
After actually turning my brain on for half a minute
Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks. Now if I could just get dinstall to use it...
I'm now further into this install (being done on a part-time basis)
and am curious about something:
Why do swapsetup, dinstall & co run as nobody?
--
Stephen
---
"Normality is a statisti
Eric Delaunay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> There is an old fdisk binary at
> ftp://lix.polytechnique.fr/pub/Linux/debian/sparc/bo/disks-sparc/fdisk
>
> It was based on util-linux 2.5 with RH patches.
> There is no fdisk for sparc in the current util-linux release (
Stephen Zander wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) writes:
>
> > Actually, though, the kernel will *mount* disks that have x86-linux
> > style partition tables -- sparc-fdisk will core dump on them, though.
>
> All vaery well & good (& I already kn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) writes:
> Actually, though, the kernel will *mount* disks that have x86-linux
> style partition tables -- sparc-fdisk will core dump on them, though.
All vaery well & good (& I already knew about Sun's disk tables). The
question remains how
Actually, though, the kernel will *mount* disks that have x86-linux
style partition tables -- sparc-fdisk will core dump on them, though.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Xavier Beaudouin wrote:
> On 23 Jan 1998, Stephen Zander wrote:
> [snip]
> > I was especially suprised to see the dinstaal doc refering to partition
> > type 83. Is Linux/Sparc using i386 (I won't say MS-DOS) style
> > partitioning?
>
> I assume yes !
Sparc systems do _not_
On 23 Jan 1998, Stephen Zander wrote:
> Finally got 'round to installing Linux on my spare Sparc5. However, I'm
> running into a problem that the odes are a little vague on.
>
> No fdisk!
I got the same problem... And I didn't find any solutions...
> I was
Finally got 'round to installing Linux on my spare Sparc5. However, I'm
running into a problem that the odes are a little vague on.
No fdisk!
The readme mumbles about a cfdisk port from i386 to sparc. Has this been
done? Are there any notes to help a brave soul (me) undertake such an
60 matches
Mail list logo
