Cannonfodder Posted March 31, 2003 Report Share Posted March 31, 2003 Just finished downloading cd 3 so I'm gonna play today.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ndeb Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 Any progress ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 Sorry got delayed. The last batch of CD's I downloaded were bad. I just finished burning CD3 this morning so sometime today I'll try it. I got the partitions ready to go.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted April 2, 2003 Report Share Posted April 2, 2003 Ok, I've repeated this but have different results.. here's what I did.. Â My second drive hdc has 3 9.1 partitions, a swap, a share partition, and 3 junk partitions that had an older version of 9.1 RC2. Â 1. Boot off of the 9.0 CD1 and custom partitioned. 3. Formatted HDC12 as ext2 and set to mount as /. 4. Installed 9.0 on HDC12 successfully. 5. Booted into 9.1 and mounted HDC12. No problem. Â Then, Â 1. Boot off of 9.1 CD1 and selected custom partitioning. 2. Deleted HDC12. 3. Created ext3 partition in same space (has partitions on either side) and set to /. Now called HDC13. 4. Installed 9.1 5. Rebooted into the new 9.1. No problem. 6. Rebooted into regular 9.1. No problem. Â I did a fdisk and the partition does say linux of type 83 (I think 83 means extended). Â I ran diskdake and its listed as ext3.. Â So I wasn't able to dup what you did.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ndeb Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Then, Â Â 1. Boot off of 9.1 CD1 and selected custom partitioning. Â 2. Deleted HDC12. Â 3. Created ext3 partition in same space (has partitions on either side) and set to /. Now called HDC13. This is surprising. When u deleted HDC12 and created a new partition in its place, it should also be called HDC12. The physical location of the partition is exactly the same as before. And the size should also be same as before. After all, the numbering of partitioning is not random. I wonder, if u delete HD13 and recreate a partition in its place, will it be called HD14 ? Obviously, something did not match my situation. U should not create more partitions than existing previously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 I noticed when I went from 8.2 to 9.0 that that behavior had changed. Previously, you deleted a partition inbetween 2 partitions, it didn't renumber them. As of 9, it does. If you look at a partition table, you will see each entry has start/end blocks so it could clear out the deleted partition entry and move the other ones up. I dislike this because it basically can invalidate your fstab file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Try this.. Â Open diskdrake and click MORE button. Â Then save the partition table to a file. Â Exit and then edit with vi... It's represented in a class structure format. Post that.. I'm curious how the offending partition is saved.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ndeb Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 In that case, I must tell my experience. When I deleted a partition, the installer told me that some other partition was being renamed (say, from A to B). Now, when I recreated the partition (same size as before), the installer again told me that partition B is being renamed A. Obviously, when you delete a partition, others will be renumbered. Now, when u recreate a partition of the same size in the same place, it should revert to the previous numbering scheme. After all, partition numbers are not based on when they are created but on where they are created. Â My guess is that you missed something somehwere or you have discovered another bug of diskdrake. My case was like this: / Â swap /home I deleted / and /home. Then receated / and /home in the exact same places with the exact same sizes, but as ext3 (instead of the earlier ext2). Naturally, the partition numbers stayed the same (as expected). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Actually, when you do the delete and restore, it does not actually move or erase the partition. All it does is remove the partition entry and the other entries are moved up in the partition table. Thus when I deleted hdc12, the partitions hdc13 were moved up and thus renumbered. Looking at the partition table afterwards youi would see that each entry is "packed" with no blank entries inbetween. I'm not sure why they did that, perhaps to make the partition tables more "compatible" with other OS systems. For example, you can't delete a partition in between other partitions with windows. Â Now when you recreate the partitions hdc12, it gets created after the last entry in the table (now hdc12, formerly hdc13). Now the new partition is hdc13 Â It really doesn't matter in the long run except to a linux system's fstab file that may no longer match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ndeb Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Actually, when you do the delete and restore, it does not actually move or erase the partition. All it does is remove the partition entry and the other entries are moved up in the partition table. Thus when I deleted hdc12, the partitions hdc13 were moved up and thus renumbered. Looking at the partition table afterwards youi would see that each entry is "packed" with no blank entries inbetween.I also thought so (that A becomes B while B becomes A). Â Have u tried deleting and recreating two partitions. Its clear that you could not reproduce the problem since the installer never asked u to reboot the system (for the changes to take effect, as reported by me and also bvc in http://www.mandrakeusers.org/viewtopic.php?t=4095 ). The key problem seems to be that the installer does some crap and asks to reboot, then just reboots without formatting any filesystem into the relevant partitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Only reason I can think of it asking to reboot is if some partition you changed was "busy" as in mount.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ndeb Posted April 3, 2003 Report Share Posted April 3, 2003 Why would any partition be mounted just after creation (during installation), given that the partition has no filesystem yet ? Its some other stupid bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.