Your message dated Mon, 25 Nov 2024 21:24:01 +0100
with message-id <20241125212401.4bbc05184635804f5d224...@mailbox.org>
and subject line Re: #820788 partman-auto: max partition size in recipe is
ignored in LVM
has caused the Debian Bug report #820788,
regarding partman-auto: max partitio
Control: reassign -1 partman-auto-lvm
--
Holger Wansing
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 partman-auto-lvm
Bug #820788 [partman-auto] partman-auto: max partition size in recipe is
ignored in LVM
Bug reassigned from package 'partman-auto' to 'partman-auto-lvm'.
Ignoring request to alter found versions of bug #82
Processing control commands:
> unarchive 893886
Bug #893886 {Done: Holger Wansing } [src:partman-auto]
partman-auto: increase max size of /boot on amd64+i386?
Unarchived Bug 893886
> forcemerge 893886 -1
Bug #893886 {Done: Holger Wansing } [src:partman-auto]
partman-auto: increase max size of /b
Control: unarchive 893886
Control: forcemerge 893886 -1
On Sat, 2020-08-15 at 12:56 +0200, Pablo R wrote:
> Package: partman-auto
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> I recently assisted a friend in her installation of Debian over the
> phone.
> Going through manual partitionning over the
Package: partman-auto
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
I recently assisted a friend in her installation of Debian over the phone.
Going through manual partitionning over the phone would be too bothersome so I
told her to use the automated partitionning option that uses a whole disk with
LVM an
Package: debian-installer
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-...@lists.debian.org
Some boot firmware, such as u-boot am335x_evm, have grown large enough
that it may overwrite the start of the first partition when configured
to start at 1MB.
We do not yet support targets affected by
Your message dated Mon, 31 Dec 2018 12:38:06 +0100
with message-id <20181231123806.9ca0f2f1cc6f93f59a0ce...@mailbox.org>
and subject line d-i manual: partman no longer supports changing the partition
size afterwards
has caused the Debian Bug report #759154,
regarding d-i manual: partman no
some housecleaning
The point here is:
partman supports changing the partition size not for all filesystems, but
that's documented in the installation-guide.
So, even if the situation is not optimal, this bug can be closed.
--
Holger Wansing
PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508
Your message dated Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:41:25 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#840467: fixed in partman-auto 137
has caused the Debian Bug report #840467,
regarding partman-auto: [hppa] Increase palo partition size to 45-50 MB
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
On 11.10.2016 23:49, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-10-11 at 22:03 +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
>> Package: partman-auto
>> Version: 136
>> Tags: patch
>>
>> Can you please increase the default palo partition size
>> (on the hppa architecture) to 45-50 M
On Tue, 2016-10-11 at 22:03 +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
> Package: partman-auto
> Version: 136
> Tags: patch
>
> Can you please increase the default palo partition size
> (on the hppa architecture) to 45-50 MB.
>
> The reason is, that on a 64bit kernel we now have ~17 MB
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 +pending
Bug #840467 [partman-auto] partman-auto: [hppa] Increase palo partition size to
45-50 MB
Added tag(s) pending.
--
840467: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=840467
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org w
Control: tag -1 +pending
Just applied in git now - thanks!
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:03:32PM +0200, Helge Deller wrote:
>Package: partman-auto
>Version: 136
>Tags: patch
>
>Can you please increase the default palo partition size
>(on the hppa architecture) to 45-50 MB.
>
&g
Package: partman-auto
Version: 136
Tags: patch
Can you please increase the default palo partition size
(on the hppa architecture) to 45-50 MB.
The reason is, that on a 64bit kernel we now have ~17 MB kernel size
and ~20 MB initrd size (both can be stored in the palo partition).
This sums up to
Package: partman-auto
Severity: normal
I am using following preseed scheme to partition my disks (RAID1+ LVM),
partition with highest priority "eats" all of the free space even tho it
has a
max size:
d-i partman-auto-raid/recipe string \
1 2 0 ext2 /boot\
/dev/sd
Package: installation-guide
Tags: patch
Hi,
partman no longer (since several Debian releases) supports changing of
the partition size afterwards (i.e. first choose 'Guided partitioning' and
then change the partition sizes via manuell editing. Or create some
partitions via 'Manue
Your message dated Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:55:01 +
with message-id <201101291555.01827.el...@debianpt.org>
and subject line
has caused the Debian Bug report #419168,
regarding RAID partition size, fs type and mount point alignment
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the p
Your message dated Wed, 1 Dec 2010 18:06:15 +0100
with message-id <20101201170615.gc8...@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#348712: enough space at least for a second kernel
has caused the Debian Bug report #348712,
regarding debian-installer-manual: suggested root partitio
Your message dated Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:02:10 +
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#411943: fixed in partman-lvm 62
has caused the Debian Bug report #411943,
regarding partman-lvm: cannot set a size to lvm partition (size 0 is invalid)
to be marked as done.
This
I partitioned it as small boot partition
and big lvm group. I then added 3 partitions on lvm group and same
error happen. Available size that screens tells you is "160GB" trying
to make it 155GB partition and you get the error. The screen is still
showing or calculating the wrong size. Ac
m trying to
> > > create lvm partition for my home at 1450GB. I keep getting the error
> > > that partition size 0 cannot be created.
> >
> > Could you please file a bug report against partman-lvm for this issue?
> >
> >
> > >
5
partition as 1500gb / 1.5Tb
I set the raid 5 partition as a lvm group and now I am trying to
create lvm partition for my home at 1450GB. I keep getting the error
that partition size 0 cannot be created.
I tried:
1450g
1450GB
97%
1.45t
1.45TB
1459000m
1459000MB
all give me the same error.
Here
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
> > I set the raid 5 partition as a lvm group and not I am trying to
> > create lvm partition for my home at 1450GB. I keep getting the error
>
On Tuesday 04 March 2008, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
> I set the raid 5 partition as a lvm group and not I am trying to
> create lvm partition for my home at 1450GB. I keep getting the error
> that partition size 0 cannot be created.
Could you please file a bug report against partman-lvm
the raid 5 partition as a lvm group and not I am trying to
create lvm partition for my home at 1450GB. I keep getting the error
that partition size 0 cannot be created.
I tried:
1450g
1450GB
97%
1.45t
1.45TB
1459000m
1459000MB
all give me the same error.
Here is a syslog.
I don't know why but w
Package: partman-base
Severity: wishlist
Hi everyone. I'd like to propose a tiny change to the way the partition setup
is displayed in partman-base. In the "(...) overview of currently configured
partitions and mount points":
* current *
==
IDE1 maste
Hi,
there is a problem with this recommendation:
how big the root partition has to be, depends on which underlying
directories are on a separate partition or not:
what if you have a "everything on one partition" partitioning
scheme...
So, there should be something like this:
The root partitio
Your message dated Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:02:16 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#259868: fixed in partman 50
has caused the attached Bug report 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 re
Your message dated Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:45:23 +0300
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#259831: Debian Installer - Installation report
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the cas
lar dialog_,
seems to be a fifth option, but that was okay. If I were really
confused or worried about my data on the disk, I guess I would have
stuck with the four action items, leaving untouch this "Continue" for
which I am not sure about.
I really liked the fact that I could configure ever
Your message dated 21 Dec 2002 15:46:41 -0600
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line outdated ext2 partition size limitations given in installation manual
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
I
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 11:15:48AM +, Chris Lale wrote:
>
>
> Chris Tillman wrote:
>
> >
> > I have had no problems with ext3 either, nor have I heard of anyone
> > having problems, nor is there any bugs open in e2fsprogs. Should we
> > just flatly recommend ext3 in the manual? Or maybe
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:52:14AM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote:
> I have had no problems with ext3 either, nor have I heard of anyone
> having problems, nor is there any bugs open in e2fsprogs. Should we
> just flatly recommend ext3 in the manual? Or maybe something like
One issue with ext3 (unl
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 02:50:19PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:16:11AM +, Chris Lale wrote:
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > >On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:10:00PM +, Chris Lale wrote:
> > >>I read in the Debian installation manual (v.3.0.24, 24th May 2002
> > >>section
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:16:11AM +, Chris Lale wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:10:00PM +, Chris Lale wrote:
> >>I read in the Debian installation manual (v.3.0.24, 24th May 2002
> >>section 6.4) that partitions greater than about 6Gb should be avoided.
> >>Does
Thanks Colin.
Colin Watson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 04:10:00PM +, Chris Lale wrote:
I read in the Debian installation manual (v.3.0.24, 24th May 2002
section 6.4) that partitions greater than about 6Gb should be avoided.
Does anyone know if this true? If so, why?
They're a bit of
37 matches
Mail list logo
