On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:15:08PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:53:54PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:46:22PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > At present, the 'parted' command-line tool is really more useful for > > > interactive use than anything else. The particular deficiency that's > > > biting me is that there's no really good way to use it to dump out a > > > list of all the partitions on the system and their properties in a way > > > that can be read by scripts such as those in the Debian installer. While > > > it's certainly possible to write small programs using libparted that do > > > what we need (and indeed we already have a couple of those), these then > > > require their own packaging in the installer, live CDs, and suchlike, > > > and I've been thinking recently that it might be better to take the > > > small step required to make the parted program usable for this purpose. > > > > Nice patch, but i still think that there is no guarantee that future > > versions > > of parted will not breka this batch-abi or whatever you call it, and it is > > still recomended to use the actual libparted that way. > > > > You could even imagine writing your own libparted based wrapper to output > > the > > values you want in the format you most like, > > We already have one of those (partconf-find-partitions). I was hoping to > kill it off, because frankly it's a nasty hack. :-) > > Is it really hard to maintain a reasonably-parseable output format that > starts out designed to be parseable and with a comment in the code > saying "please only extend this in the following way"? Lots of other > programs manage it ... > > > and then you would need to package it only once, > > Twice, actually, if you want to provide it in the installed system as > well as the installer.
Bah, you provide one source package which provides the .udeb and the .deb, i have some doubts about the usability of this in the installed system, where you would have no excuse to use the real thing :) > But oh well, it was worth a try ... Hey, please don't jump to hasty conclusions, did i not start my reply with nice patch, and i have no doubt it will get integrated. I still think this is not the right way, but hey, you wrote the patch, so no reason not to include it. Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ Bug-parted mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
