This also happen on my RHEL 5.4 system, ><fs> verbose 1 ><fs> part-list /dev/vda send_to_daemon: 0x125f8050 g->state = 3, n = 40 recv_from_daemon: 0x125f8050 g->state = 3, size_rtn = 0x7fff4368090c, buf_rtn = 0x7fff43680900 parted -m -- /dev/vda unit b print parted: invalid option -- m guestfsd: error: unknown signature, expected "BYT;" as first line of the output: libguestfs: error: part_list: unknown signature, expected "BYT;" as first line of the output: ><fs> verbose 0 ><fs> debug sh 'parted --version' GNU Parted 1.8.1 the 1.8.1 version of parted does not support the -m option. but the daemon hard coded the -m.
Yes, this is a real bug. It's one that we were already discovering and avoiding in our EL-5 build. See: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/EL-5/libguestfs/libguestfs.spec?view=markup 482 # Parted in EPEL 5 doesn't support -m (machine-friendly) option, and 483 # (not being very machine-friendly) doesn't make it easy to detect 484 # this fact. You would see errors like this: 485 # 486 # /sbin/parted -m -- /dev/vda unit b print 487 # /sbin/parted: invalid option -- m 488 # guestfsd: error: unknown signature, expected "BYT;" [...] 489 export SKIP_TEST_PART_GET_PARTTYPE=1 490 export SKIP_TEST_PART_GET_BOOTABLE=1 But it's one which we need to fix by emulating parted.
Patch posted upstream: https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2010-June/msg00026.html
libguestfs-1.2.9-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libguestfs-1.2.9-1.el5
libguestfs-1.2.9-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libguestfs-1.2.9-1.fc13
libguestfs-1.2.9-1.el5.1 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libguestfs-1.2.9-1.el5.1
Full build here (not finished as I write this): http://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/brew/taskinfo?taskID=2576284
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2010-0566.html