[SOLVED] Error: Can't have overlapping partitions.

[ziggy]

Just installed (or rather reinstalled) PCLOS2010 and did the synaptic update thing.  I reinstalled because I was getting a kernel panic when booting (seehttp://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php/topic,76606.0.html) for details.  I reformatted the partitions and the reinstall went without any problems.  After the update I got the  message "While installing package plymouth-0.8.3-1pclos2010: Error: Can't have overlapping partitions."  The error appears for 8 lines and another 8 lines after "While installing package suspend-0.8-5pclos2010:".  I got the exact same errors the first time I updated after my first install of PCLOS2010.  A search of the forums didn't turn up anything so this must not be a very common problem.

I'm wondering if anyone knows how I might analyze my hard drive and it's partitions to determine what the problem might be?  Right now I'm not having any problems with the new install and it's booting fine, but I'm not confident that will last.  The output from fdisk for the drive in question is below.  

Thanks for any suggestions.  --ziggy

Disk /dev/sdb: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 14593 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x82c78c0d

   Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sdb1               1         392     3148708+   7  HPFS/NTFS
/dev/sdb2             393       14593   114069532+   5  Extended
/dev/sdb3   *         785        2090    10490445    c  W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/sdb5             393         784     3148708+  82  Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sdb6            2091        3396    10490413+  83  Linux
/dev/sdb7            3397        4702    10490413+  83  Linux
/dev/sdb8            4703        6008    10490413+  83  Linux
/dev/sdb9            6009        7313    10482381   83  Linux
/dev/sdb10           7314       14593    58476568+   7  HPFS/NTFS

[Bald Brick]

The problem is that sdb3 is both a primary partition and within the extended partition sdb2. (The logical partitions that normally reside within an extended partition are numbered from sdb5 up.)

The good news is that there's no real overlapping of partitions holding data. The bad news is that you probably have to change sdb3 into a logical partition, which will change the numbering of all your existing logical partitions.

The alternative would be keeping sdb3 as a primary partition, turning your swap partition into a primary partition, and recreating sdb2 as a much smaller extended partition. That would also change the numbering of your other logical partitions, and to me it sounds more bothersome.

As you've just reinstalled and presumably haven't had much time to configure your system, I'd reinstall once more. That would be a lot faster than trying to fix your slightly eccentric partitioning scheme.

[ziggy]

Thanks blackbird for that analysis.  I'm not sure how that happened but it's been a long time ago that I originally partitioned that drive and I'm not sure if I did it with Windows Disk Manager or Acronis Disk Director or what.  I do know that Gparted sees nothing on the drive - reports the entire drive as empty.  You said that

As you've just reinstalled and presumably haven't had much time to configure your system, I'd reinstall once more. That would be a lot faster than trying to fix your slightly eccentric partitioning scheme.

Are you saying I shouldn't try to fix the partitioning problem, and if so, why would reinstalling again be necessary? I'm not sure I follow your suggestion.  Maybe you could clarify for me?
Thanks --ziggy

[Bald Brick]

Thanks blackbird for that analysis.  I'm not sure how that happened but it's been a long time ago that I originally partitioned that drive and I'm not sure if I did it with Windows Disk Manager or Acronis Disk Director or what.  I do know that Gparted sees nothing on the drive - reports the entire drive as empty.  You said that

As you've just reinstalled and presumably haven't had much time to configure your system, I'd reinstall once more. That would be a lot faster than trying to fix your slightly eccentric partitioning scheme.

Are you saying I shouldn't try to fix the partitioning problem, and if so, why would reinstalling again be necessary? I'm not sure I follow your suggestion.  Maybe you could clarify for me?
Thanks --ziggy

You are quite right. Reinstalling is not necessary and by itself it wouldn't help.

Repartitioning would.

So being lazy by nature I just recommended a reinstall because then you could at the same time repartition your whole drive.

If you want to fix your partitioning scheme while retaining everything on your current partitions, that is quite possible, but personally (and being lazy) I would rather back up my settings and data, repartition, reinstall, and then restore what I just backed up.

Note that, whether you repartition or just fix your current scheme, sdb3 would become sdb5 within sdb2, and all the other logical partitions would be renumbered.

But if you must fix your system the hard way, I'm certain that Old-Polack has already explained how to do it using fdisk. If you can't find a relevant thread, post back.

[ziggy]

OK, I understand what you were saying now.  I could repartition that drive and start from scratch, which is probably what I'll do eventually.  I'm going to continue to run this install until it breaks again and then reinstall.  It's funny that I never had any problems with PCLOS2007/2009 which is still installed on the drive in two of the partitions.  I did another forums search on "overlapping partitions" and this time I did get some hits (don't know why I sometimes get no results).  Old-Polack did go through a detailed description of how to correct a situation like this, but for me it would probably be easier to start over and repartition.

I thank you for taking the time to explain the problem and indicate possible fixes.  I think at this point I'm going to sit back and see what happens.  I can always reinstall when necessary (although the updates required this time were already over a half GB).  I'm considering this problem solved.  --ziggy