On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:38:05PM +1100, Crossfire wrote:
> This is actually correct behaviour - not that you'd know it.
thanks for the explanation from you and Jeff.
It kinda makes sense (in a weird dos sort of way).
Trouble is I find it confusing if partition numbers
are missing (eg. hda1, 2, 5, 6).
> The Fix? rebuild hda4 as an extended with hda5, a fat32 partition.
or use lilo...
Dave.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
