On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 14:46 +0200, Davide Bettio wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > That the old and stupid MSDOS partitions don't support anything useful
> >is no reason not to support partition labels. You might want to read:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table#Partition_entries_.28LBA_2
Hi,
> These values are just not set for MSDOS part tables, because that old
> stuff does not support it. That's how things work. We don't have any
> ext3 specific uuid properties, just because iso9660 does not have
> uuids. Also partition labels have zero in common with filesystem
> labels, they n
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 14:46, Davide Bettio wrote:
>> That the old and stupid MSDOS partitions don't support anything useful
>>is no reason not to support partition labels. You might want to read:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table#Partition_entries_.28LBA_2.E2.80.9333.29
>
> We
Hi,
> That the old and stupid MSDOS partitions don't support anything useful
>is no reason not to support partition labels. You might want to read:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table#Partition_entries_.28LBA_2.E2.80.9333.29
We can't suppose that the user is using a GUID parti
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 14:25, Davide Bettio wrote:
> I can't understand what PartitionLabel property is meant to be.
> Usually labels are stored in the filesystem and moreover the most common
> partition table type hasn't got any support for labels.
> I suggest you to re
Hi,
I can't understand what PartitionLabel property is meant to be.
Usually labels are stored in the filesystem and moreover the most common
partition table type hasn't got any support for labels.
I suggest you to rename it to Label or to FilesystemLabel.
Bye,
Dav
