Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #174495 > unrolled thread

Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 16:50 +0100
    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 19:00 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-11 19:00 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 19:40 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:00 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 20:10 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:30 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-11 20:40 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:50 +0100
              Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-11 21:00 +0100
                Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 21:20 +0100
                  Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 23:20 +0100
              Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-11-11 22:20 +0100
                Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-11 23:00 +0100
                  Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-11-11 23:30 +0100
                    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 00:20 +0100
                  Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 00:40 +0100
                    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-12 01:40 +0100
                    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Joseph Loo <jloo20111002@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 01:50 +0100
                      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 02:00 +0100
                    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 01:50 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 21:50 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 22:00 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 21:50 +0100
    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-11-11 20:10 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:20 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-11-11 20:40 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 20:50 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-11-11 22:00 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2016-11-11 21:00 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 22:00 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-11-11 22:40 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 22:50 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 22:00 +0100
    Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Michael Milliman <michael.e.milliman@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 21:00 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 21:10 +0100
      Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-11 22:10 +0100
        Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 23:00 +0100
          Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 14:50 +0100
            Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 16:50 +0100
              Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 18:20 +0100
                Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 20:20 +0100
              Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 02:30 +0100
                Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 05:20 +0100
                  Re: install recommended by default? Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-11-13 05:50 +0100
                    Re: install recommended by default? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 14:40 +0100
                  Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:20 +0100
                    Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 14:10 +0100
                      Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 15:00 +0100
                      Re: install recommended by default? (was: Gparted will not label...) Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 22:40 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#174495 — Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition

Several years ago I purchased an external 1 TB USB connected 
drive for backups.
The base of the enclosure says it is a Seagate drive.
Partitions:
   #1 is ntfs 293 GiB [146 GiB used] labeled "FreeAgent GoFlex Drive"
   #2 is extended partition for remainder of drive
   #5 is fat32 62.5 GiB [31.5 GiB used] with no label


I successfully mounted partitions 1 and 5.  Both are readable and 
contain files from unknown Windows machines. On my Windows 
Desktop hardware C:\Documents and Settings\user\Recent indicates 
that it had been used on that machine back in 2011. There is 
similar evidence that it had been used on my Windows Laptop in 
2012. Neither machine reports files with "goflex" in filename 
{case insensitive search}.

I attempted to label partition 5 with Gparted, but the "Label" 
menu option was greyed out.
The "Label" option was available for partition 1. I had no 
problem creating partition 6 as fat32 and labeling it.

Any suggestions as to what the problem is?
Is there another option that would allow me to label the 
partition with no other effects on that partition?



TIA

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#174502

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 09:47:40 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:

> Several years ago I purchased an external 1 TB USB connected drive for
> backups.
> The base of the enclosure says it is a Seagate drive.
> Partitions:
>   #1 is ntfs 293 GiB [146 GiB used] labeled "FreeAgent GoFlex Drive"
>   #2 is extended partition for remainder of drive
>   #5 is fat32 62.5 GiB [31.5 GiB used] with no label
> 
> 
> I successfully mounted partitions 1 and 5.  Both are readable and contain
> files from unknown Windows machines. On my Windows Desktop hardware
> C:\Documents and Settings\user\Recent indicates that it had been used on
> that machine back in 2011. There is similar evidence that it had been used
> on my Windows Laptop in 2012. Neither machine reports files with "goflex" in
> filename {case insensitive search}.
> 
> I attempted to label partition 5 with Gparted, but the "Label" menu option
> was greyed out.
> The "Label" option was available for partition 1. I had no problem creating
> partition 6 as fat32 and labeling it.
> 
> Any suggestions as to what the problem is?
> Is there another option that would allow me to label the partition with no
> other effects on that partition?

gparted for labelling a partition is overkill. Use dosfslabel.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174504

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, Brian a écrit :
> gparted for labelling a partition is overkill. Use dosfslabel.

dosfslabel label will not label a partition, it will label a filesystem.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174509

	Hi.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:59:29 +0100
Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:

> Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, Brian a écrit :
> > gparted for labelling a partition is overkill. Use dosfslabel.
> 
> dosfslabel label will not label a partition, it will label a filesystem.

gparted does not label partitions either, it does label any supported
filesystem or swap inside a partition. Brian's advice is valid.

As for the original problem - gparted is a GNOME application, so it's
expected to silently refuse doing potentially dangerous operations.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174510

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 21:33:58 +0300, Reco wrote:

> As for the original problem - gparted is a GNOME application, so it's
> expected to silently refuse doing potentially dangerous operations.

And yet gparted(8) and the manual at

  http://gparted.org/display-doc.php%3Fname%3Dhelp-manual

indicate setting a file system label is supported. Are we looking at a
bug in gparted?

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174511

	Hi.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:52:06 +0000
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 21:33:58 +0300, Reco wrote:
> 
> > As for the original problem - gparted is a GNOME application, so it's
> > expected to silently refuse doing potentially dangerous operations.
> 
> And yet gparted(8) and the manual at
> 
>   http://gparted.org/display-doc.php%3Fname%3Dhelp-manual
> 
> indicate setting a file system label is supported. Are we looking at a
> bug in gparted?

Beats me as I don't know C++ gparted is written in, nor have any desire
to learn it. Plain C is enough for me, and there's strace for the cases
when it does not.

Presumably gparted checks if a partition is used by something (a mounted
filesystem maybe?) and fails silently (i.e. makes a button inactive) if
it considers such check successful.

Whenever such check is justified, and whenever the implementation of
the check is flawless is something left to be seen.

Personally I'd say it's not worth the trouble to investigate the
issue as dosfslabel should do the job without the (potentially
dangerous) need to run GUI tool as root. There's a reason they use
PolicyKit for nearly everything else which requires root in a modern
GNOME, after all.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174515

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:59:29 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote:
> Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, Brian a écrit :
> > gparted for labelling a partition is overkill. Use dosfslabel.
> 
> dosfslabel label will not label a partition, it will label a filesystem.

Does a partition have a label?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174518

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, David Wright a écrit :
> Does a partition have a label?

Yes, depending on the partition scheme.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174519

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:32:52 (+0100), Nicolas George wrote:
> Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, David Wright a écrit :
> > Does a partition have a label?
> 
> Yes, depending on the partition scheme.

Any reference. You see, I find label a very slippery word.
You can label a disk at almost every level: a sticky label,
a disklabel (partition table), a filesystem label, a volume label
(perhaps those two are equivalent), and whatever is handled by
devlabel (which might be historic).

So I'm unsure what you mean by a partition label, where it's
stored, and how it differs from a filesystem label.
Is it new-fangled?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174523

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, David Wright a écrit :
> Any reference. You see, I find label a very slippery word.
> You can label a disk at almost every level: a sticky label,

True, but not really relevant.

> a disklabel (partition table),

This is BSD slang. But this was what I was referring to.

>				 a filesystem label,

Indeed. That is the most common one.

>						     a volume label
> (perhaps those two are equivalent),

I do not think "volume" means anything in the Linux world.

>				      and whatever is handled by
> devlabel (which might be historic).

It looks like a tool to make symlinks based on the above labels.

> So I'm unsure what you mean by a partition label, where it's
> stored, and how it differs from a filesystem label.

Well, the filesystem label is stored in the filesystem metadata, i.e.
probably the superblock. The partition label is stored in the partitions
metadata, i.e. the "partition table".

> Is it new-fangled?

MBR-style partition tables do not contain labels, if that is what you
are asking. But GPT does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174525

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:53:17 +0100, Nicolas George wrote:

> Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, David Wright a écrit :
> > Any reference. You see, I find label a very slippery word.
> > You can label a disk at almost every level: a sticky label,
> 
> True, but not really relevant.
> 
> > a disklabel (partition table),
> 
> This is BSD slang. But this was what I was referring to.
> 
> >				 a filesystem label,
> 
> Indeed. That is the most common one.
> 
> >						     a volume label
> > (perhaps those two are equivalent),
> 
> I do not think "volume" means anything in the Linux world.
> 
> >				      and whatever is handled by
> > devlabel (which might be historic).
> 
> It looks like a tool to make symlinks based on the above labels.
> 
> > So I'm unsure what you mean by a partition label, where it's
> > stored, and how it differs from a filesystem label.
> 
> Well, the filesystem label is stored in the filesystem metadata, i.e.
> probably the superblock. The partition label is stored in the partitions
> metadata, i.e. the "partition table".
> 
> > Is it new-fangled?
> 
> MBR-style partition tables do not contain labels, if that is what you
> are asking. But GPT does.

May I say I appreciated the correction about labels being applied to
file systems and not partitions. I'd done a copy and paste (with a
change to a spelling) without any thought in mind to disabuse the OP
about the technical aspects. It seemed more important to get him on
the road.

But, this is getting interesting.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174546

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:18:59 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:53:17 +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> 
> > Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, David Wright a écrit :
> > > Any reference. You see, I find label a very slippery word.
> > > You can label a disk at almost every level: a sticky label,
> > 
> > True, but not really relevant.
> > 
> > > a disklabel (partition table),
> > 
> > This is BSD slang. But this was what I was referring to.
> > 
> > >				 a filesystem label,
> > 
> > Indeed. That is the most common one.
> > 
> > >						     a volume label
> > > (perhaps those two are equivalent),
> > 
> > I do not think "volume" means anything in the Linux world.
> > 
> > >				      and whatever is handled by
> > > devlabel (which might be historic).
> > 
> > It looks like a tool to make symlinks based on the above labels.
> > 
> > > So I'm unsure what you mean by a partition label, where it's
> > > stored, and how it differs from a filesystem label.
> > 
> > Well, the filesystem label is stored in the filesystem metadata, i.e.
> > probably the superblock. The partition label is stored in the partitions
> > metadata, i.e. the "partition table".
> > 
> > > Is it new-fangled?
> > 
> > MBR-style partition tables do not contain labels, if that is what you
> > are asking. But GPT does.
> 
> May I say I appreciated the correction about labels being applied to
> file systems and not partitions. I'd done a copy and paste (with a
> change to a spelling) without any thought in mind to disabuse the OP
> about the technical aspects. It seemed more important to get him on
> the road.
> 
> But, this is getting interesting.

Yes, I guess we have to be more careful about distinguishing partition
and filesystem labels now that GPT is common. In the OP's instance, we
know that filesystem labels were meant because "extended partition"
was mentioned, so it's an MBR with no partition labels sensu stricto.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174536

Hi,

David Wright wrote:
> So I'm unsure what you mean by a partition label, where it's
> stored, and how it differs from a filesystem label.

See "Partition name (36 UTF-16LE code units)" in
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table#Partition_entries

This describes the GPT partition table which is the newer of the
two usual partition table formats. Lots of partitions are possible
on a disk.

The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical
ones in one of the primary partitions. Also known as "MSDOS"
partition table. No partition names there.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174543

Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit :
>
> The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical
> ones in one of the primary partitions.

Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174548

Hi,

i wrote:
> > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical
> > ones in one of the primary partitions.

Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited.

You are right. Must have been some mislead memory from old experience
with partitioning tools.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174552

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 23:22:36 (+0100), Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> i wrote:
> > > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical
> > > ones in one of the primary partitions.
> 
> Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> > Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited.
> 
> You are right. Must have been some mislead memory from old experience
> with partitioning tools.

There was a period (rex) when Debian only created /dev/sda[1-8]
on SCSI disks, though this only affected whether you could *access*
a greater number of partitions, not *create* them.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174553

On Friday, November 11, 2016 04:58:41 PM Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit :
> > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical
> > ones in one of the primary partitions.
> 
> Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited.

Ok, just to be part of this ongoing saga, I think the number of logical 
partitions is limited to something like 12 or 16 (or maybe the total number of 
partitions, primary plus logical is limited to 16.  (And maybe that's a limit 
of one or more OSs rather than a universal limit.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174554

rhkramer@gmail.com composed on 2016-11-11 18:36 (UTC-0500):

> Pascal Hambourg wrote:

>> Thomas Schmitt composed:

>> > The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical
>> > ones in one of the primary partitions.

>> Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited.

> Ok, just to be part of this ongoing saga, I think the number of logical
> partitions is limited to something like 12 or 16 (or maybe the total number of
> partitions, primary plus logical is limited to 16.  (And maybe that's a limit
> of one or more OSs rather than a universal limit.)

When libata was a juvenile it inherited SCSI's maximum block id minor number 
15, making /dev/sd#15 the limit. It took awhile before the new major number 
259 was provided with a larger maximum minor, 127 IIRC, to boost the libata 
limit past 15.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174557

On 11/11/2016 04:39 PM, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:36:15 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, November 11, 2016 04:58:41 PM Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>>> Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit :
>>>> The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical
>>>> ones in one of the primary partitions.
>>>
>>> Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited.
>>
>> Ok, just to be part of this ongoing saga, I think the number of logical 
>> partitions is limited to something like 12 or 16 (or maybe the total number of 
>> partitions, primary plus logical is limited to 16.  (And maybe that's a limit 
>> of one or more OSs rather than a universal limit.)
> 
> That doesn't seem to square with
> http://forums.justlinux.com/showthread.php?147959-How-to-install-and-boot-145-operating-systems-in-a-PC
> (Scroll down to "Partition Tables".)
> 
> Cheers,
> David.
> 
Your URL is talking about gpt scheme. The limitation is in the MSDOS
partition scheme

-- 
Joseph Loo
jloo@acm.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174559

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 16:45:40 (-0800), Joseph Loo wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 04:39 PM, David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:36:15 (-0500), rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, November 11, 2016 04:58:41 PM Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> >>> Le 11/11/2016 à 22:17, Thomas Schmitt a écrit :
> >>>> The older format is MBR with 4 primary partitions and 4 logical
> >>>> ones in one of the primary partitions.
> >>>
> >>> Huh ? The number of logical partitions is unlimited.
> >>
> >> Ok, just to be part of this ongoing saga, I think the number of logical 
> >> partitions is limited to something like 12 or 16 (or maybe the total number of 
> >> partitions, primary plus logical is limited to 16.  (And maybe that's a limit 
> >> of one or more OSs rather than a universal limit.)
> > 
> > That doesn't seem to square with
> > http://forums.justlinux.com/showthread.php?147959-How-to-install-and-boot-145-operating-systems-in-a-PC
> > (Scroll down to "Partition Tables".)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > David.
> > 
> Your URL is talking about gpt scheme. The limitation is in the MSDOS
> partition scheme

You only read the updates at the top!

> > (Scroll down to "Partition Tables".)

... and see

/dev/hda4             367       36483   290109802+   5  Extended
...
/dev/hda60          34658       35265     4883728+  83  Linux

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web