[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre

From: Andrew Clausen
Subject: Re: Parted 1.5.1-pre
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:52:56 -0200

Dan Knapp wrote:
> > I don't think backups need to be human-editable, although human
> > readable might be nice.  I think something like
> >
> > fprintf (stream,
> >        "id-%d: start-%l end-%l c-%d h-%d s-%d type-%d\n",
> >        num, start, end, c, h, s, type);
> >
> > would suffice.
> >
> > I don't think other programs would/should ever need to parse these.
>   Then, that's what I'll do.  That's pretty similar to what I almost
> suggested, but I do value the stated purposes of XML,

Me too, but not inside Parted!  (Well, if we can make it a compile
option, or make support be dymanically loaded, then that's ok by me)

>   At any rate, XML is *most definitely* not easier to parse.

It probably is with libxml, or whatever ;-)

>   It would be hard for us to prevent scripting! :)  All right, in this case
> config files will be a distinct format from the backup files, so they needn't
> be figured out now...  What sort of capabilities might they have?
>   The obvious, to start things off:

This is for config files?

There's one bigger problem, that we need to think about first, I think.
Automatic partitioning is NP hard (it's the knapsack problem - do you
want an explanation?  Free space is the knapsacks, the new partitions
are the "stones")

I think we need to think about how we would solve this problem first...
which will affect they config format (it affects what the parameters
are going to be)

Andrew Clausen

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]