On Tue 29 Jan 2019 at 23:36:27 (-0500), Albretch Mueller wrote: > On 1/29/19, David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote: > > However, the second method uses manual partitioning of the disks with > > gdisk, so I don't see why sda should not contain a(nother) FAT > > partition which is ignored. > > I don't see why either. Also, given the fact that so many, entirely > fine computers (with 4+ Gibs RAM!) are being discarded/discontinued on > a yearly basis (mostly for software related issues or just because > they are "old"), why shouldn't people keep the a very small (less than > 64Mbs) diagnostic partition from the manufacturer on sda1 and use the > rest of the space for the installation?
No reason, but when people post a recipe that they actually use, it will likely contain choices that they made for their own reasons. So, for example, I've never used non-expert mode install, guided partitioning, or EFI installation, and recipes that assume any of these might be of limited use to me. > Is it because the unencrypted root partition wants to sit on sda1? s/root/boot/ I can't think why that would matter. > At the very least the Debian installer should explicitly tell you: > "no, you can't install and encrypted volume on just a partition > (hopefully: 'because . . .')" > > > If the sda partition numbers are all > > increased by one > > How do you do that? and, can you revert the partition numbers back if > the need arises? I think most probably that won't be the solution > and/or may create other problems. I just meant that you would read instructions like these: $ mdadm --create /dev/md/boot --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda2 /dev/sdb2 $ mdadm --create /dev/md/lvm --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda3 /dev/sdb3 $ mkfs.vfat -F32 /dev/sda1 $ mkfs.vfat -F32 /dev/sdb1 as: $ mdadm --create /dev/md/boot --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda3 /dev/sdb2 $ mdadm --create /dev/md/lvm --level=1 --raid-devices=2 /dev/sda4 /dev/sdb3 $ mkfs.vfat -F32 /dev/sda2 $ mkfs.vfat -F32 /dev/sdb1 > > which command is it that would prevent the > > method from working? > > How could you find out about it? By trying it out, I guess. I fall at the first hurdle on requirements 1 (EFI) and 3 (2 disks). Cheers, David.
