Re: HFS Patch 16 ported to Parted 1.6.19

[Andrew Clausen]

On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 11:45:59AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Ok. So you would give up looking at the development branch ?

I guess so.  Well, I could continue my current approach of "take
a look at parted every 2 weeks".  This isn't very good for helping
people get their patches applied.

> It really depends on how much development the stable branch is taking.

I imagine the stable branch will continue to take about the same
amount of development as it has in the past 3 months or so.

> > Perhaps the biggest amount of work in looking after a development
> > branch is applying the changes from the stable branch to the development
> > one.  Anyone interested?
> 
> Well, what would be the task ? Doing the development, or just handling
> the different patches and so provided by folk.

The latter only.

> Should we not have a first round of discussion on the future of parted
> before we start a devel branch, and would this led to parted 2.0 ?
> Or do you want only a devel branch to early test things like the hfs+
> patches ? 

I'm mostly talking about the latter.  I would like to make it
easier for people who want to contribute to Parted to get the help
they need... in particular testing.

> BTW, on a separate note : 
> 
>   2004-11-21  Andrew Clausen <address@hidden>
>   * libparted/linux.c (linux_new): get rid of pointless exception for
>     exotic block devices.
> 
> Has a negative effect of now not making the difference between a
> normal block device and a CD rom device or something such, which makes
> partitioners out there offer CD drives for partitioning. I think this
> is in the same category as the lvm2 patch, not sure though.

Sounds like it.  Know any ways to tell CDs apart from everything else?

> And secondly, about this EDD module. I have two questions : 1) it will only
> work on x86, right ?

Yes.  It is only relevant on x86, though.

> And 2) in how far is it different from the int13 stuff
> XFree86 uses to run bioses to initialize graphic cards that weren't primary
> ones at startup time ? 

I don't know.  I suspect the mechanism for running the BIOS code is
similar.

Cheers,
Andrew