Re: Typo in libparted

[Andrew Clausen]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 11:00:42AM -0600, Harley D. Eades III wrote:
> > I feel strange, as i understand the original code looks for FAT at
> > 0x36, and then for SBML at 0x40. The new code looks for FATSBML at
> > 0x36, which means the SBML will start at 0x39. Maybe SBML is written
> > two times in the MBR table ?
>
> Maybe, is the original author of the patch around?  Or do you know of
> any documentation covering SBML?

Oops, I thought they were aligned one after the other!  (My maths
was so wrong an several levels!)

I'll fix this now...

Cheers,
Andrew