> The question to know here, is if what you saw was the result of a > mistake of yours (choosing pc98 instead of msdos), or because your disk > was already formatted in pc98 modus. If this is so, we can close this > bug report. > > If on the other hand, the presence of a pc98 partition table is due to > for some reason or other some part of d-i choosing it for you, or > recomending you to use it, then this is a d-i bug, and needs to be > closed. > > But this distinction, i fear, only you can make it, since i am not > really all that familiar with the partitioning tools involved in d-i, > and i don't know exactly what you did or did not.
ok. During the installation I didn't choose or recommend any type of partition table. I am not aware of a previous pc98 partition table. The disk had already worked well under previous debian installation (and a try with a woody installer worked). So, probably, the partition table was already pc98, it worked with a woody installer but not with the new one -> the old installer had a feature the new one has not? The other possibility is that something strange happened that made parted think that the partition table was pc98. Rewriting it as msdos worked. I don't know if the woody installer supported pc98 tables, so I can't guess which one of the two is the right one. If it's the second one, I have not thought of backupping the old partition table, so it's lost :! and I can't think of a way of knowing what was wrong. So I guess: * if the old installer supported pc98 tables -> there's a bug in parted that doesn't read well pc98 tables (or a feature missing) * if the old installer didn't, don't know :! Eugenia -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
