Tags: patch Hello,
I have traced this problem down to libparted (and reassigned the bug accordingly). I think I have found the problem, but since I cannot reproduce the behaviour, I am not sure. I attached a patch for libparted/disk_dos.c. The problem seems to be that the partition number does not get initialized. This is supposed to happen later, but there is a check that it will not renumber primary partitions. The patch initializes the number to -1, so the renumbering will indeed happen. Could you please test if the problem is solved with this patch? In case you don't want to build from source, I built a .deb which I put at http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/~shevek/debian/parted/ Maintainers: The package mentioned above is all set up to do an NMU. I don't expect this will happen, as you seem to be pretty responsive. The reason is I'm currently in NM, and I needed an RC bug to prepare an NMU for. Before I reassigned it, this was a good candidate. ;-) Thanks, Bas Wijnen -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
#! /bin/sh /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch-run
## extended.dpatch by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
##
## All lines beginning with `## DP:' are a description of the patch.
## DP: No description.
@DPATCH@
diff -urNad parted-1.6.25.1~/libparted/disk_dos.c
parted-1.6.25.1/libparted/disk_dos.c
--- parted-1.6.25.1~/libparted/disk_dos.c 2005-11-11 13:35:53.000000000
+0100
+++ parted-1.6.25.1/libparted/disk_dos.c 2006-02-10 13:05:48.000000000
+0100
@@ -850,6 +850,8 @@
goto error;
if (!is_extended_table)
part->num = i + 1;
+ else
+ part->num = -1;
if (type != PED_PARTITION_EXTENDED)
part->fs_type = ped_file_system_probe (&part->geom);
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
