Re: PATCH: fix gcc bug and big-endian issues for GPT

[Andrew Clausen]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 09:39:21AM +0100, Richard Hirst wrote:
> 1. It wouldn't make the code work on big-endian machines.

Why not?  I fixed the endianness issues independently.  Unless
I missed something...

> 2. It wouldn't fix the problems with partition unique GUIDs having the
>    wrong byte-order.

Likewise.

> 3. Kernel code has been changed is a similar way, so it makes some sense to
>    keep parted in step.

I disagree... modifying partition tables is 10x harder than just
reading them.  Notice that my rewrite is about 1/2 LOC of the original.

I don't like the layout of the 1.4.x code... I would prefer to
maintain my version.

> > BTW: if we get 1.6.0 out soon (like, once gpt is fixed, tommorrow is
> > fine by me...), then is there a good reason to fix 1.4.x gpt as
> > well?  Since the code is so different, it's probably not worth
> > the effort to maintain both gpt implementations...
> 
> Debian woody release is "any day now", and will release with 1.4 as the
> default parted version.  RedHat is using 1.4 at the moment, no idea
> whether they would immediately switch or not.  For people with graphical
> frontends on top of libparted1.4, does switching to 1.6 involve some
> rework of their frontend?

Yeah, pretty minimal though.

> If so, they might want to stick with 1.4 for
> a while yet.

The changes are so minimal that that seems like a strange reason to me.
Being careful wrt new bugs is a more likely reason.

Anyway, my main question was: "are these distro's going to be widely
used with gpt tables?".

Andrew