Re: parted pre9

[Ethan Benson]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 04:42:50AM +1100, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> > also it seems that every partition you create in a pc98 label is
> > marked bootable, and cannot be marked otherwise is this normal?
> 
> Yes.

weird ;-)  

> Yes, I know!  I can't think of a good workaround.
> 
> When we merge with partimage, there should be no need for the
> bootstrap code (I suspect...), so this will go away, eventually...

what is the bootstrap code for anyway?  why not leave that to grub or
lilo?  

> They still get created!  BTW, corezion tested it with MacOS.  MacOS
> likes it :-)

yeah i have not done much testing with macos, macos ignores my disk
because it lacks all those dumb drivers.

> Yes.  s/0.812/0.8125/

hmm, seems like i tried something like that and parted told me off...

/me can't wait till i can just tell it +800K ;-)

> When won't it work?

when you need a type 41 partition so your PReP or RS6000 will boot ;-)
these don't even use a filesystem, you install the boot loader like
so:

dd if=/usr/lib/yaboot/yaboot of=/dev/hda2 bs=512

or on PReP:

dd if=/boot/vmlinux-2.2.17 of=/dev/hda2 bs=512

and set 2 boot on won't work since that just turns the boot flag on.
since the firmware is what were dealing with the type does matter.  (i
think anyway, RS6000 folks say you need to make it a type 41) 

it also matters if you need to create a OpenBSD slice which is
technically not a filesystem.  but i suppose you could do that some
other way, though im not sure how.   

> BTW: it is based on the file system AND the partition flags.

yes i agree this is nicer, but it doesn't always work, see PReP boot. 

> BTW2: it's MUCH better this way.  99.9% of users don't know which
> partition type they should select (even those who THINK they do!)
> The flags system makes it much more intuitive (and looks cute
> in GUIs ;-)

yes i agree it is nicer, just more restrictive for unusal situations.  

> Yes.  What's wrong with this?

i suppose nothing for that case...  

> This support can (and will, if ppl scream/care enough to send in
> patches) be added.  However, I can't see any reason to move away
> from the FS & flag system.

i don't either, the problem is it does not work for all situtations,
there is always some oddball thing someone wants to do that won't fit
what you prepared for, thats what makes unix so cool, you can do
almost anything with few limits set by the original developer.  

> Not when we support all the (useful) types.  I don't think we need
> to support CP/M  *grin*

yes, true, you just need to support all the useful types, even when
they are not related to a filesystem, ie PReP boot, *BSD slices etc. 

> > a way to set arbitrary types on mac
> > partitions would be useful too IMO.
> 
> Why?

if i need to create a partition you don't support, like oh Apple_UFS
;-) 

my point is you can't possibly think of every possible situation
someone might find themselves in, so its useful to have a way to
control things in detailed way.  furthermore its just the unix way ;-)

> > can you change `set x boot on' to set the partition name to
> > `bootstrap' for mac partition tables?  i think this is better then
> > leaving it `untitled'.
> 
> What if the user (or MacOS) gave it a different name?

MacOS won't because MacOS does not understand Apple_Bootstrap (thats
the point!) if the user has given it a name other then untitled leave
it alone i suppose.  even though the name does not show anyway but
partitioner i think.  (it has nothing to do with the name a filesystem
has) 

> 
> Yep.  This idea has already been suggested.  Maybe, One Of These
> Days, but there are so many more interesting/important things to
> do!

heh 

> Don't like this idea.  Too complicated.  I prefer your "-" idea.

ok.  fair enough,  i do like the idea of an interactive mkpart though..

otoh i would be alot happier if i didn't have to type the silly
`primary' over and over again for absolutly no reason at all on
non-x86 tables.  (something i didn't try, can you abbreviate it?  just
p l or e ?) 

> hehe, except it's broken when you make a mistake.  You have to start
> all over again.

i suppose, not much worse then retyping a command line though (or
pressing the arrow key a bunch.. something else i didn't try is the
bash style C-a C-e)

> Ah.  I see.  Hmmm.  If we had a proper lexer / parser, it would
> be quite cute... One Of These Days TM.
> 
> Have to think about the interface a bit though.  (Feedback WRT
> which partition you're up to, etc.)  All you Mac people have to
> Think Different TM with your UIs, don't you!  :p

hey i prefer unixy interfaces, i actually *like* the fdisk interface
;-)  (yes i am a freak i know) the lack of feedback on what partition
im on does not bother me since i tend to print the table after
creating a partition anyway (old fdisk habit) 

as for mac people they won't be happy with anything but a pure GUI
program with probably far too much hand holding then i can personally
stand.  (but then i can't hardly stand GUIs anymore since they need
the mouse, which causes me severe wrist pain) 

the thing that has just been bugging me about parted is i can create
12 partitions in fdisk in probably 30 seconds, but it takes me several
minutes in parted...  (partly not being as used to it, but also the
more verbose commands have alot to do with it)

> Thanks for your comments :-)

no problem ;-)

-- 
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

pgp5RJPKpzijH.pgp
Description: PGP signature