headers
nakor | 2 Jun 2003 19:11
Picon

new user - extended partition question

Hi All,

I have a question about disk partitioning and labeling during the
installation process.

My disk have structure right this:
	hda1 = NTFS
        hda3 = Extended partition
        	hda5 = Linux Native
                hda6 = Linux Native
                hda7 = Linux Swap
                hda8 = Win32 LBA
        hda2 = Win32 LBA (rescue)

I want to install NetBSD to the hda5 in the extended partition.
During the installation process I can see only extended partition
but not partition in the extended partition. What i have to do
with this ???

Thanks a lot.

	Nakor

--

-- 
Ziskejte kvalitu, kterou si zaslouzite. Za minimalni mesicni
poplatek vam nabizime Antivir, Antispam nebo dalsi kapacitu pro
vas Mailbox. Vice na: http://sluzby.volny.cz/product/mailpaid/
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Matthias Scheler | 7 Jun 2003 10:33
Picon
Favicon

Re: new user - extended partition question

In article <1f801b1af770706acdd17fabf19b1417 <at> www2.mail.volny.cz>,
	nakor <at> volny.cz writes:
> I want to install NetBSD to the hda5 in the extended partition.
> During the installation process I can see only extended partition
> but not partition in the extended partition. What i have to do
> with this ???

You cannot install NetBSD into a logical partition inside an extended
partition. The best solution in your case is probably to move the
Linux swap partition into the extended partition and use the free
primary partition for NetBSD.

	Kind regards

--

-- 
Matthias Scheler                                  http://scheler.de/~matthias/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Chris Gilbert | 13 Jun 2003 10:37
Picon

syspkg versioning (Re: CVS commit: src/distrib/sets)

(note switching to tech-install)

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 22:24:38 -0400 (EDT)
Jim Wise <jwise <at> draga.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:34:49PM -0400, Jim Wise wrote:
> >> Is there a reason the ability to explicitly version system packages
> >was> discarded?  Previously, a system package on a release branch was
> >> versioned with the current OS version of the branch, plus a `tiny'
> >> version number of the syspkg, such as
> >>
> >> 	base-util-bin-1.6.0.0
> >>
> >> for the version of that package that shipped with 1.6.0, and
> >>
> >> 	base-util-bin-1.6.0.1
> >>
> >> for a hypothetical first `relevant' update to that package (such as
> >when> an SA was issued for a binary in the package).  This allows
> >tracking of> `important' changes in such a syspkg, much like the
> >`nbXX' version> add-ons in pkgsrc.
> >
> >The old versions don't work at all well on -current, and anything
> >which discourages people from running the -current branch should be
> >discouraged, IMO.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Laight | 14 Jun 2003 15:44
Picon

should sysinst change MBR_PTYPE_386BSD to MBR_PTYPE_NETBSD?

There is code in sysinst for 3 ports (arc, hpcmips and i386) that blindly
changes an mbr partition of type MBR_PTYPE_386BSD (165) to 
MBR_PTYPE_NETBSD (169) if one exists and one of the latter doesn't.

I realise that this was put in (at least for i386) because the type of
the netbsd label changed.  But I wonder if this code (at least in its
current form) is well past its 'best before' date?

Was it ever needed for arc and hpcmips?

Is it likely that an upgrade from such an old release will actually
work?

Do I remember something about the format of a netbsd disklabel being
slightly different from other bsds that might be (still) using type 165?
(something like the sector numbers being relative to the mbr partition?)
If so then this translation (and the related kernel code) is completely
brain dead.

	David

--

-- 
David Laight: david <at> l8s.co.uk
Permalink | Reply | 28 comments |
headers
Perry E. Metzger | 14 Jun 2003 17:14
Gravatar

Re: should sysinst change MBR_PTYPE_386BSD to MBR_PTYPE_NETBSD?


David Laight <david <at> l8s.co.uk> writes:
> Do I remember something about the format of a netbsd disklabel being
> slightly different from other bsds that might be (still) using type 165?

FreeBSD uses 165 -- I don't know what they do with their labels
though.

Perry
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Alan Barrett | 14 Jun 2003 17:32
Gravatar

Re: should sysinst change MBR_PTYPE_386BSD to MBR_PTYPE_NETBSD?

On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, David Laight wrote:
> Do I remember something about the format of a netbsd disklabel being
> slightly different from other bsds that might be (still) using type 165?
> (something like the sector numbers being relative to the mbr partition?)
> If so then this translation (and the related kernel code) is completely
> brain dead.

386BSD type 165 partitions contain disklabels that contain sector
numbers relative to the entire disk.

Current NetBSD type 169 partitions contain disklabels that contain
sector numbers relative to the entire disk.  I don't know why NetBSD
changed the number when the format did not change.

Current FreeBSD type 165 partitions contain disklabels that contain
sector numbers relative to the MBR partition (what FreeBSD calls a
"slice").  I don't know why FreeBSD changed the format without also
changing the number.

--apb (Alan Barrett)
Permalink | Reply | 26 comments |
headers
David Laight | 14 Jun 2003 18:16
Picon

Re: should sysinst change MBR_PTYPE_386BSD to MBR_PTYPE_NETBSD?

> Current FreeBSD type 165 partitions contain disklabels that contain
> sector numbers relative to the MBR partition (what FreeBSD calls a
> "slice").  I don't know why FreeBSD changed the format without also
> changing the number.

Or how they managed any sort of compatibility across the change...

In any case I would therefore expect that a FreeBSD type 165
partitition is actually more likely than an old NetBSD one.

Which makes flipping the partition type stupidly dangerous.

	David

--

-- 
David Laight: david <at> l8s.co.uk
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Perry E. Metzger | 14 Jun 2003 18:24
Gravatar

Re: should sysinst change MBR_PTYPE_386BSD to MBR_PTYPE_NETBSD?


Alan Barrett <apb <at> cequrux.com> writes:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2003, David Laight wrote:
> > Do I remember something about the format of a netbsd disklabel being
> > slightly different from other bsds that might be (still) using type 165?
> > (something like the sector numbers being relative to the mbr partition?)
> > If so then this translation (and the related kernel code) is completely
> > brain dead.
> 
> 386BSD type 165 partitions contain disklabels that contain sector
> numbers relative to the entire disk.
> 
> Current NetBSD type 169 partitions contain disklabels that contain
> sector numbers relative to the entire disk.  I don't know why NetBSD
> changed the number when the format did not change.

I made that change. I did it to permit people to dual boot NetBSD and
FreeBSD.

> Current FreeBSD type 165 partitions contain disklabels that contain
> sector numbers relative to the MBR partition (what FreeBSD calls a
> "slice").  I don't know why FreeBSD changed the format without also
> changing the number.

I assume they didn't feel they had to.

--

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry <at> piermont.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 23 comments |
headers
Perry E. Metzger | 14 Jun 2003 18:25
Gravatar

Re: should sysinst change MBR_PTYPE_386BSD to MBR_PTYPE_NETBSD?


David Laight <david <at> l8s.co.uk> writes:
> Or how they managed any sort of compatibility across the change...
> 
> In any case I would therefore expect that a FreeBSD type 165
> partitition is actually more likely than an old NetBSD one.

Depends. I know lots of people with really old installs out there....

> Which makes flipping the partition type stupidly dangerous.

It certainly shouldn't do it without asking, or at least without
determining for sure that it is a NetBSD partition.

--

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry <at> piermont.com
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frederick Bruckman | 15 Jun 2003 01:06

Re: should sysinst change MBR_PTYPE_386BSD to MBR_PTYPE_NETBSD?

On 14 Jun 2003, Perry E. Metzger wrote:

> Alan Barrett <apb <at> cequrux.com> writes:
> >
> > 386BSD type 165 partitions contain disklabels that contain sector
> > numbers relative to the entire disk.
> >
> > Current NetBSD type 169 partitions contain disklabels that contain
> > sector numbers relative to the entire disk.  I don't know why NetBSD
> > changed the number when the format did not change.
>
> I made that change. I did it to permit people to dual boot NetBSD and
> FreeBSD.

I believe that you'd need a custom kernel without
COMPAT_386BSD_MBRPART to actually do that, though. Why is that
still on in GENERIC? As long as there's an option to change the
ID in sysinstall, it's not needed.

Frederick
Permalink | Reply | 22 comments |

Gmane