Re: Parted 1.6.5-pre1

[Andrew Clausen]

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.

> > 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...

Cheers,
Andrew