On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 04:18:10PM +0100, Szakacsits Szabolcs wrote: > - one of the most disliked one described below, even a patch is provided > to solve it (at least partly), > > http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-parted/2003-05/msg00046.html > > Knowing where things are in sector level is very important > occasionally.
This patch only solves half the problem. I guess it's the important half though. (The other half is getting Parted to talk to you in custom units) Besides, this usually isn't a problem, because things get rounded in a big way for alignment stuff. > - decimal point usage in sizes is IMHO confusing, useless, ridiculous > (partition size is e.g. 315003089.536 bytes). If one needs better > resolution then he/she should use smaller units. But see above. Agreed. > - no save/restore partition table functionality. Partitioning is very > messy, complicated, a lot of scenarios. When somethings goes wrong > (quite frequently if you read/filter many lists/etc) the only you can > say "sorry, maybe next time" (or try testdisk, gpart, etc -- I hear > better results than using parted's 'rescue'). qtparted allows you to "commit". I think this is a better solution (but both features are good) > - offered choice 'ignore' to the users when it is _nonsense_ and would > destroy their data. It does as it were demonstrated several times. There are plenty of times when it isn't nonsense, but you have convinced me we should be more conservative. > - "report this .... bug" instead of "check out ... for updates, etc" > Unfortunately there isn't any Changelog/FAQ on the Parted site, not to > mention link to the latest release. Is this really important? Perhaps we should have a separate bug list to the main list. I think it's best to minimize the time users have to spend to report a bug - otherwise they won't bother. > > and have been toying in doing a reimplmentation in ocaml, with maybe > > some coq-based prooves of good behavior, and having coq generate the > > corresponding code afterward. But i lack some time for this, and am > > not sure an ocaml-based libparted reimplementation would be welcome. > > I'm afraid it wouldn't be :) I would like it, if that counts! > - most distros ship parted but I don't know any who ships ocaml Debian :) > - many people know C thus they might contribute but most doesn't > know ocaml and should learn it to do so This is important. > - you would throw away a lot of "hidden" knowledge in parted and > you should rediscover them the hard way I wouldn't mind watching over it. (This is less time-consuming than maintenance) Cheers, Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]