Xubuntu install on Win7 laptop fails

[Nils Kassube]

Xen wrote:
> No. The numbers are entries in a table. If you remove an existing
> partition and create new partitions in that space, they will get
> higher numbers (higher indices in the table) while having lower
> physical addresses.
> 
> This is why things get out of order. Unfortunately parted does not
> have an option to reorder stuff. But gdisk can:

But what would be the advantage if the partitions are sorted? OK, there 
would be no (IMHO useless) warning message, but that's it.

> If you wanted these numbers to always be in physical order, you would
> have to always do this reordering. It just doesn't happen by itself, I
> mean that the parted or gparted tool would also have to always
> reorder the tables.
> 
> They are just entries in a list. You have to reorder the entries if
> you want them to have increasing numbers on disk.
> 
> The reason, ostensibly, that parted (or gparted) does not do this on
> its own, or by itself, automatically, is because it might change your
> fstab entries and so on.

I think fstab entries using the device name could produce unexpected 
results after removing partitions, no matter if the partiton names are 
sorted. Example: I have partitions sda5, sda6, sda7 and sda6 is in my 
fstab. Now I remove sda5 for whatever reason. Then my fstab entry for 
sda6 points to the partition which was sda7 before I removed sda5. Next 
I add two partitions in the space which was sda5 previously. If the 
entries are not sorted, my fstab entry for sda6 still points to the 
partition which was sda7 in the beginning. If the partition entries 
would be sorted, my fstab entry for sda6 would now point to the second 
of the newly created partitions. So no matter if the entries are sorted 
or not, bad things could happen, if someone really uses device names in 
fstab entries.


Nils