Re: HFS Patch 16 ported to Parted 1.6.19

[Sven Luther]

On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 09:05:13PM +1100, Andrew Clausen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 06:23:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Any volunteers to merge fixes from the stable version into a
> > > development/unstable version?
> > 
> > euh ?
> 
> Are you volunteering? ;)
> 
> What I mean is: if a development branch of parted were forked off,
> the stable branch would still need to be maintained.  I don't
> have time to look after both the stable and development branch.
> (I'm struggling to look after stable as it is!)

Ok. So you would give up looking at the development branch ? It really depends
on how much development the stable branch is taking.

> 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. 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 ? 

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.

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

Friendly,

Sven Luther