[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: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:32:09 +1100
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 06:18:55PM +0100, Wlodek Drabent wrote:
> >  I can't think of an example where a typo would do something BAD.
> >  Can you?
> Just typing a wrong partition number.

I think the  commit/undo idea me and Andreas discussed recently
is nicer.

> In my case - unsuccessful attempts to extend the last partition - a
> message like I suggested would tell me in advance that nothing bigger
> is going to be generated.  

What if the difference is only 512 bytes? (very common)

Newer versions of Parted warn you if it's significantly different.

> Such a message would tell how the numbers are interpreted before
> making actual changes.

Yeah, obvious, but I don't think anyone cares how they are interpreted.

> Fdisk/cfdisk and other tools give the user such oportunity; the
> results of required changes are / can be displayed before commencing
> to do them

OK, the committ thing will allow this.

> 2. Parted says:
> ................
> Warning: Unable to align partition properly.  This probably means that another
> partitioning tool generated an incorrect partition table, because it didn't 
> have
> the correct BIOS geometry.  It is safe to ignore,but ignoring may cause
> (fixable) problems with some boot loaders.
> Ignore Cancel ? 

I find this all really hard to believe... the same
function that is failing ("unable to align")  was the
function that aligned the partition in the first place.
(this is equivalent to saying 1 != 1)

Perhaps your commercial program screwed it up?
I'm confused.

> 3. /proc/ide/hda/geometry   is
>     physical     7944/16/63
>     logical      993/128/63

This is very strange.


reply via email to

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