Phillip Susi wrote: > I have to say that adding more type codes for no reason is something > I'm against. Like you said in your first post, the loss was caused by > a bug in debian-installer coupled with the lvm type code. If you > simply use the normal "Linux" type code, then everything works out Which "normal" "Linux" type code are you talking about? The one that's marked "Linux filesystem"? That sounds like it's simply shifting the potential for trouble somewhere else. The one for "Linux reserved"? If that's the intent of that one, perhaps it should be clearer that it's "reserved for user" rather than "reserved for some unknown OS use". If there were a "Linux general/other" type code, then I agree that that would be fine, but I don't see one in the list. ---> Drake Wilson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
