[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?)
From: |
Andrew Clausen |
Subject: |
Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?) |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 03:29:01 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
Hi Wlodek,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:21:51PM +0100, Wlodek Drabent wrote:
> I encountered something which may be a bug:
> I could not enlarge the last fat partition to the very end of the
> disk. parted created in it a fat filesystem smaller than the
> partition.
I doubt this is the case... Parted will complain if you run "check"
on the partition... could you try doing this?
> And any attempt of enlarging by "resize" failed,
> resulting in a partition without the last cylinder.
Parted doesn't permit this, because other programs don't like it.
> (Also, parted was able to create overlapping partitions.
REALLY?!
> Also, other tools complained about its results. For instance cfdisk
> called after parted displayed NC for partitions not modified by
> parted).
Can you give me instructions for reproducing this?
> Could I also suggest an improvement? It would be VERY useful if
> before writing anything to the disk parted asked for a confirmation,
> displaying a description of what is going to be done.
> Now the user does not know, for instance, how the numbers she types
> are actually interpreted.
In future (near future)... it will warn the user if it's going to
do something significantly different to what the user asked.
> Providing a spec file to create an rpm, instead of normal installing,
> is a GREAT idea. Advertise it better. I believe that for almost
> everybody this way of installing/uninstalling is much better.
Most people will probably use RPMs from their distribution.
Those who compile themselves probably want to set configure
options, etc. so I don't think it affects many people.
Thanks!
Andrew
- 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?), Wlodek Drabent, 2002/02/12
- Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?),
Andrew Clausen <=
- Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?), Wlodek Drabent, 2002/02/13
- Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?), Andrew Clausen, 2002/02/14
- Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?), Wlodek Drabent, 2002/02/14
- Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?), Andrew Clausen, 2002/02/14
- Re: 1.Thanks, 2.Bug(?), Wlodek Drabent, 2002/02/16