> -----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:
> debian-installer partitioning failure]
>
>
> 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 kernel 2.4, once with 2.6,
> and invoke
> > fdisk -l /dev/hda each time. Would that be what you need?
>
> By the kernel. i don't know fdisk, but maybe, also look in
> the dmesg output too.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what do I have to do to get the geometry reported by
the kernel?
Anyway, here is already the output of fdisk -l on Knoppix (kernel 2.4), Knoppix
(kernel 2.6), and the debian installer shell:
--------------------------
Linux Knoppix 2.4.23-xfs #1 SMP Mi Dez 10 22:25:03 CET 2003 i686 GNU/Linux
Platte /dev/hda: 40.0 GByte, 40007761920 Byte
240 Köpfe, 63 Sektoren/Spuren, 5168 Zylinder
Einheiten = Zylinder von 15120 * 512 = 7741440 Bytes
Gerät 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 W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/hda4 3322 4694 10379880 5 Erweiterte
/dev/hda5 3738 3805 514080 82 Linux Swap
/dev/hda6 3806 4694 6720808+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda7 3322 3737 3144928+ 83 Linux
Partitionstabelleneinträge sind nicht in Platten-Reihenfolge
---------------------------
Linux Knoppix 2.6.1 #1 SMP Thu Jan 15 15:10:43 CET 2004 i686 GNU/Linux
Platte /dev/hda: 40.0 GByte, 40007761920 Byte
240 Köpfe, 63 Sektoren/Spuren, 5168 Zylinder
Einheiten = Zylinder von 15120 * 512 = 7741440 Bytes
Gerät 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 W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/hda4 3322 4694 10379880 5 Erweiterte
/dev/hda5 3738 3805 514080 82 Linux Swap
/dev/hda6 3806 4694 6720808+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda7 3322 3737 3144928+ 83 Linux
Partitionstabelleneinträge sind nicht in Platten-Reihenfolge
--------------------------------
Linux notebook-mz 2.6.7-1-386 #1 Thu Jul 8 05:08:04 EDT 2004 i686 unknown
Disk /dev/discs/disc0/disc: 36.3 GB, 36344161280 bytes
240 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4694 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 15120 * 512 = 7741440 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/discs/disc0/part1 * 1 2349 17758408+ 7 HPFS/NTFS
/dev/discs/disc0/part2 4695 5168 3583440 41 PPC PReP Boot
/dev/discs/disc0/part3 2350 3321 7348320 c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/discs/disc0/part4 3322 4694 10379880 5 Extended
/dev/discs/disc0/part5 3738 3805 514080 82 Linux swap
/dev/discs/disc0/part6 3806 4694 6720808+ 83 Linux
/dev/discs/disc0/part7 3322 3737 3144928+ 83 Linux
Partition table entries are not in disk order
---------------------------------------------
fdisk version is 2.12 in all cases.
Note that this output also contains some geometry information, and that there is a
difference between the two Knoppix outputs and the d-i output. Perhaps this is what
you looked for?
> > > 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.
> >
> > You mean, the fix will not make it into sarge? This would
> mean sarge
> > will not be installable on a certain number of machines??
>
> The fix should not make it into sarge with the current
> release schedule. Anything else would need an intervention of
> one of the RMs and/or joeyh. It is out of my hands.
>
> > I can hardly imagine that...
>
> Yeah, but then, a binary incompatible library upgrade at this
> time is rather over-late.
As far as I have seen, this bug is 148 days old...
What can we do to try to trigger such an intervention? Or will there be a workaround?
Another partition manager in d-i? I mean, this is a really severe bug which would make
Debian unusable for a certain number of people.
I hope this can be avoided...
Best regards,
Matthias
>
> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>
