Joel Granados wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:19:45PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Joel Granados wrote: >>> Just read this going throuhg 3 months of backed up parted mail. You >>> make a very good point but I think going agains the spec is not the way >>> to go. This would increase the possibility of incompatibilities with >>> other UEFI spec implementations other than what parted has (which I'm >>> not al all sure it complies 100% :) >>> >>> For me, this is a big question mark ATM. >> It's not going against spec. The UEFI spec doesn't specify what goes in >> that area, and it is *guaranteed* to break GPT booting on BIOS >> platforms, which is about as disastrous as you can get. > > oops, yep, got mixed up with the legacy partition table. Which *should* > be changed to make other apps understand that what is contained in the > disk is gpt compliant. > > I really see no reason why we are zeroing this out. > > anybody?
No complaints here - I think this is definitely something we want to take. Cheers, Bryn. _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
