So calamares and gparted disagree with regards to the size and distribution of partitions.
Linux - Laptop and NetbookHaving a problem installing or configuring Linux on your laptop? Need help running Linux on your netbook? This forum is for you. This forum is for any topics relating to Linux and either traditional laptops or netbooks (such as the Asus EEE PC, Everex CloudBook or MSI Wind).
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
You might be able to guess from the gparted side of the image but I'm trying to stick the linux install into that 20gb unallocated spot, leaving the windows partitions etc untouched. This used to be simple, done it many many many times. Never seen this happen before.
What is causing this and how can I fix it? Try as I might I can't get the two to reconcile and agree on anything. I am worried that if I allow calamares to do what it wants it might nuke my whole drive. This would be very, very bad.
Not acceptable - open a bug against Parrot. They have almost certainly customised calamares. Maybe they'll push it up-stream given the following from the calamares site
Quote:
Calamares includes an advanced partitioning feature, with support for both manual and automated partitioning operations.
Not acceptable - open a bug against Parrot. They have almost certainly customised calamares. Maybe they'll push it up-stream given the following from the calamares site
I have a post on their support forum as well though it's still waiting for moderator approval. I can't for the life of me figure out why calamares is so wrong about the partitions.
All the sizes quoted by Calamares for partitions p1 to p4 appear to be incorrect.
I would be more inclined to believe GParted's figures.
Yep, which is why I said that gparted was correct in my initial post. They agree on how big the total drive is, but disagree as to how the partitions are sized and distributed. Very, very strange.
I have a post on their support forum as well though it's still waiting for moderator approval.
And when it gets approved they'll tell you it's a bug and to go raise it was one, so you might as well do that bit now, and maybe it'll get fixed that bit sooner.
And when it gets approved they'll tell you it's a bug and to go raise it was one, so you might as well do that bit now, and maybe it'll get fixed that bit sooner.
Signed up there and threw up a report. It may or may not be calamares related, we will have to see. It might just be some silly glitch elsewhere that calamares is picking up on. Only time will tell I suppose.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.