[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug in Parted 1.4.21?

From: Andrew Clausen
Subject: Re: Bug in Parted 1.4.21?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:29:05 +1100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.17i

On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:17:18PM -0000, andreas t wrote:
> I have been using Parted 1.4.21 for a while now since we tracked the 
> naughty problem with file names containing dots and it works nicely 
> now.

Excellent :)

> I noticed something tonight though. When I try to create a second 
> primary fat32 lba partition it is reported as FAT16 lba by other 
> partition tools (and Windows98). I did answer "OK" to the Parted's 
> question wether or not to use fat32 on the partition.

Interesting.  (BTW: lba is irrelevant in this context).
How big is the partition?

> It's difficult to see what Parted thinks about the partition since 
> 1.4.21 doesn't report FAT32 when I use print. It just says FAT for 
> all my partitions.


> Oh, and as a side note, I think it would be nicer if the user could 
> enter;
> mkpartfs primary vfat... or fat32... 
> right away instead of Parted suggesting the appropriate file system.

In the long run, I'd like to have a parameter interface.  So,
you could set things like the block size, etc.  I would prefer
if fat16 vs fat32 was another parameter, rather than a different FS.

OTOH, I wouldn't be opposed to a patch which made two fs's (fat16
and fat32) in the meantime, like we do with ext2 and ext3.

> Of course a sanity check is still nice of course if the user would 
> try to force an impossible file system.

Of course, goes without saying.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]