Re: v3.0: scripting, args, boundaries

[Jim Meyering]

Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 14 August 2011 20:10, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> Parted is now at version 3.0; now is a fine time to fix the long-standing
>>> problems. Please go through the code with a nanometer-spaced comb and fix 
>>> it.
>>>   - Please choose one absolute byte where partitions can begin. Make it
>>>     consistent throughout the entire program. Publish this number.
>>
>> Not possible.
>> The numbers differ depending on which partition table type you use.
>>
>
> I am not surprised that gparted is the mess we see now with this approach.
>
> A partition starts where it starts whatever table/label is used to
> describe it. All the tables and labels I know can describe partitions
> with sector precision so there is no excuse for gparted to not do so.

You seem to be confusing gparted (the GUI) and parted, which includes a
library, libparted, and a command-line interface.

gparted *does* do the type of aligning
(e.g., snap-partition-start-sector-and-length-to-1MiB) that the OP wants,
while the lower-level parted does not.

> If the units for gpt or apple partition map differ they should still
> not pose a problem for aligned partitions.

It's not about units.
With a GPT partition table, the minimum starting sector number
is not the same as the minimum when using a DOS partition table.

If you want the features of gparted while using the lower-level
parted, you have to do the math yourself, like gparted does.