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
