Re: FC2 and dual-boot Windows

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 13:35 -0700, Taylor, ForrestX wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 13:25, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 13:10 -0700, Taylor, ForrestX wrote:
> > > I am working on getting my FC2 build released, but I am worried about
> > > the problem with dual-booting Windows that I have seen.  Is there any
> > > way to get the legacy partitioning info for the installer without any
> > > manual intervention?  Are there any updates for the
> > > kernel/parted/anaconda that would remedy this problem?
> > 
> > I still have yet to reproduce the problem.  If you have a way to
> > reliably reproduce it and are willing to test, there's some work going
> > on in upstream parted to try to make it a non-issue.  As it stands right
> > now, I'm following the discussion and it seems sane, but I can't do much
> > in the way of testing.  If I have someone who can reproduce and who will
> > test, it's easy enough for me to make an updates.img with an updated
> > libparted that will get used.
> 
> Really?  I thought that it was an issue for everyone.  I haven't had
> time to even test it with Windows yet--I thought I'd get a fix first and
> test that.  I'll see if I can reliably reproduce the problem and then
> I'll test libparted.  Anaconda grabs the libparted from the installation
> tree during buildinstall, doesn't it?  I can also test a newer parted
> with buildinstall.

It would be far easier if it were an issue for everyone ;-)  My new
laptop came with XP pre-installed and I happily shrunk the partition and
everything worked without any problems at all.  The libparted gets
pulled from the package tree, yes, but I haven't built a CVS parted
package yet.  You can if you'd like (or my offer definitely stands of
making an updates.img)

> > > I've seen
> > > solutions that use the legacy EDD information to change the heads to
> > > 255/240, although I haven't been able to determine which disks to
> > > perform this on.  I assume that int13_dev80 is only for device 0x80,
> > > thus the discussion about disks other than 0x80.  
> > 
> > This is a hack and there are comments in various places about it not
> > being good enough.  It definitely doesn't at all feel robust to me.
> 
> It certainly is a hack, so I'll try to reproduce the problem and test a
> newer parted.

That would be much appreciated by me at least :-)

Jeremy



[Index of Archives]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]
  Powered by Linux