On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 22:33:49 -0500 David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Rodolfo Medina (rodolfo.med...@gmail.com): > > David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes: > > > Quoting Joe (j...@jretrading.com): > > >> Everything else is likely to refer to the mount points in > > >> fstab, and if mounting is by UUID, presumably nothing needs to > > >> be done even there. > > > > > > Indeed, and also if using LABELs. That's why I wondered about the > > > reason for making the change if it was at all risky (which it > > > turned out not to be). The OP didn't say. > > > > I said, that I had to ptoperly edit fstab and, also, reisntall grub > > boot loader to mbr, with Debian Installer rescue mode. The system > > wouldn't boot any more. > > I wondered why the non-increasing partition numbers worried you enough > that you needed to change them round. Was that because "The system > wouldn't boot any more" immediately after resizing whichever > partition? Or did the system fail to boot only after you swapped the > partition numbers over? I can't tell which. > In the distant past, I found some low-level software that didn't like partitions out of order, it's a long time since I've had a drive in that state, and I can't remember what it was. I used to use multiple boots, and the only way (IIRC) to get an NT4.0 installation above about 8GB into the drive was a complicated method (Microsoft approved, their instructions) involving two installations, then deleting one. It left space which could only be used by making a new partition. -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150420085032.3fa56...@jresid.jretrading.com
