Your message dated Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:11:05 +0100
with message-id <1277053865.14011.900.ca...@localhost>
and subject line Re: Bug#586568: dosfslabel failed: 256 at
/var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059, <STDIN> line 10. Logical
sector size is zero.
has caused the Debian Bug report #586568,
regarding dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line
1059, <STDIN> line 10. Logical sector size is zero.
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
586568: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586568
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: linux-base
Version: 2.6.32-15
Severity: normal
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-1-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages linux-base depends on:
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.32 Debian configuration management sy
ii libapt-pkg-perl 0.1.24 Perl interface to libapt-pkg
ii libuuid-perl 0.02-3+b1 Perl extension for using UUID inte
ii udev 147-4 /dev/ and hotplug management daemo
ii util-linux 2.16.1-4 Miscellaneous system utilities
linux-base recommends no packages.
linux-base suggests no packages.
-- debconf information:
linux-base/disk-id-manual-boot-loader:
linux-base/disk-id-manual:
linux-base/disk-id-convert-plan-no-relabel: true
* linux-base/disk-id-convert-plan: true
* linux-base/disk-id-convert-auto: true
here is my partition table as shown by parted.
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: msdos
Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
1 32.3kB 200GB 200GB primary ntfs boot
2 200GB 240GB 40.0GB primary ext3
3 240GB 1000GB 760GB extended lba
5 240GB 248GB 8000MB logical linux-swap(v1)
6 248GB 446GB 198GB logical ext3
I don't understand the "Logical sector size is zero." message
before
"dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059,
<STDIN> line
10."
Any advise using dosfslabel on my system to diagnose more precisely the problem
is
welcome.
I hope it's not because of any missusing of partition.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 18:31 +0200, pitamila wrote:
[...]
> here is my partition table as shown by parted.
>
> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
> Partition Table: msdos
>
> Number Start End Size Type File system Flags
> 1 32.3kB 200GB 200GB primary ntfs boot
> 2 200GB 240GB 40.0GB primary ext3
> 3 240GB 1000GB 760GB extended lba
> 5 240GB 248GB 8000MB logical linux-swap(v1)
> 6 248GB 446GB 198GB logical ext3
>
> I don't understand the "Logical sector size is zero." message
> before
> "dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059,
> <STDIN> line
> 10."
>
> Any advise using dosfslabel on my system to diagnose more precisely the
> problem is
> welcome.
>
> I hope it's not because of any missusing of partition.
You have a line in /etc/fstab that refers to a disk or partition with
filesystem type 'vfat' or 'msdos', while the disk/partition actually
uses some other type. You should remove or correct this line, then run
'dpkg --configure --pending' to retry the upgrade.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--- End Message ---
