Bas Zoetekouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, does it really matter _why_ they did it? The problem here (as I
> perceive it, at least), is that parted is for some reason "fixing" the
> starting sector of the partition, while it shouldn't touch the beginning
> of the partition at all. All it should do is change the _ending_ sector.
>
> Maybe indeed starting a partition at a non-cylinder boundary will break
> Windows (on pre-LBA harddisks, etc). But if that is the case, then the
> partition table was broken already before parted had anything to do with
> it. I don't think that in such a situation chaning the ending sector
> will make things worse.
>
> Of course, this is a totally different situation than in the case that
> parted is creating a new partition from scratch. In such a case, of
> course, it _does_ make sense to write a sane parition table with
> partitions starting at cylinder boundaries only.
>
> So IMO this should be fixed by somehow restricting the parition aligning
> to the ending sector only, and not have libparted and _partition_align()
> touch the begin sector of the partition at all, if the partition is
> being resized. In the case that a new partition is created, everything
> should stay as it is, and both beginning and ending sector should be
> aligned.
Well, partially you're right.
The problem here is how to decide if we should or not align it. That's
the most difficult question...
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
