Re: Parted 1.6.5-pre1

[Veerapuram Varadhan]

> On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 12:49:35PM +0530, Veerapuram Varadhan wrote:
>> > Why is it logically wrong?
>>
>> Well, according to the "literal logic", we are matching the "device
>> names" (not including the "/", i hope so) against a specific pattern,
>> that's why.
>
> I guess I see what you mean, but I don't think it's important,
> and I think the code is easy to understand and maintain.
>

No comments. :-)

>> > Perhaps... I don't know.  What are the major/minor numbers?  (You
>> can get this with "ls -l").  You (or I) can check in
>> > /usr/src/linux/Documentation/devices.txt how many partition numbers
>> are allocated.
>>
>> I did that and found only 7 minors for each c0dx.. :(
>
> I'm not surprised :(
>
>> > That sounds bad.  Linux has crazy minor number limitations.  It has
>> been the subject of many flamewars, and I think the plan is to have
>> it fixed...
>>
>> Will libparted reflect that Linux's limitations?
>
> No.  Reason: Parted is meant to allow interoperability, and this
> includes with other operating systems without such limitations
> (including future versions of Linux).
>
> I guess Parted could include some warnings... I'm accepting patches...
>

Thats a cool idea.  Do you have those patches already or shall i send you
one? ;-)

If i have to submit a patch, guide me about your procedures regarding
comments, changelog and coding style and also how to generate the patch.

> Cheers,
> Andrew

Cheers,
V. Varadhan