Is this truely a /grave/ bug with /lilo/?
Certainly you were able to use the force option, and LILO did its job;
this is annoying but not unusable. Certainly it didn't cause data loss.
The verbose flag told you what was going on, it had incorrectly detected
the presence of an NT FS. Is there anything left that justifies a grave
severity? Certainly this points to a pessimistic NTFS detector in LILO,
that detected NTFS where it wasn't present. Problem is if it wasn't so
pessimistic, it might destroy NTFS when it was present.
Depending on how things were setup, this could be blamed on the partition
table program you used, for failing to knock out a signature. Might this
be a documentation failure (then whose documentation?), for not telling
you to completely nuke the old boot block?
(note, I am not the maintainer)
--
(\___(\___(\______ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- ______/)___/)___/)
\BS ( | [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP 8881EF59 | ) /
\_CS\ | _____ -O #include <stddisclaimer.h> O- _____ | / _/
\___\_|_/82 04 A1 3C C7 B1 37 2A*E3 6E 84 DA 97 4C 40 E6\_|_/___/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
