[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Questions, additions, and ideas.

From: Sven Luther
Subject: Re: Questions, additions, and ideas.
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:58:50 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 05:56:42PM -0600, Harley D. Eades III wrote:
> Hello,
>         I have been mucking around with an idea with some older cvs sources.  
> There more then likely is a good reason why parted doesn't do this already 
> but I am going to bring it up anyway.  Parted currently commits changes to 
> disk as soon as they happen.  I have implemented with very little change a 
> parted that has an 'undo' command and only writes the partition changes to 
> disk when the user issues a write.  Basically the changes I have made where 
> the passing/returning of args to/from functions instead of passing a 
> PedDevice we create only one per disk then pass the PedDisk around altering 
> the struct that way.  When ever one needs to access the PedDeivce one uses 
> disk->dev. This seems to work very well.  The reader is probably wondering 
> why I changed parted.  Well upon request from several GNU/Hurd devs I have 
> start to create an interface to libparted that looks and acts exactly like 
> fdisk but with added parted bells and whistles.  I have actually coded the 
> fdisk interface 
>  and it now holds every fdisk command plus every parted command.  This brings 
> up another question is the idea of parted being packaged with three 
> interfaces exceed the boundary of possibility? See if not then by default 
> parted would compile the traditional parted interface.  Then if the user 
> would want others they could add options to the configure script i.e. 
> configure --int=fdisk, --int=cfdisk, --int=fdiskfam(both fdisk, cfdisk) or 
> --int=all(fdisk, cfdisk, and parted).  This I think along with several others 
> would be a good addition for parted.  I have talked with several people and a 
> large number of them say they don't use parted because there used to the 
> fdisk interface.  Then I ask would they use it if parted looked and felt like 
> fdisk and they always return a yes.  Like I said in the subject these a 
> merely ideas, ideas that I have working demos of but none the less ideas.  
> Please comments and feedback are what I am requesting so please do.  Thanks 
> again and happy hackin

I don't really know, is it a complete new interface, or just a patching of the
old parted interface ? Do we want to keep the old parted interface ? 

Could you commit the code to a branch or something, so we could have a look at
it ? 


Sven Luther

reply via email to

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