Colin Watson wrote: > This might be a bit more controversial than my last linux-swap patch. > :-)
Not that controversial, imho. > I just noticed due to a comment from Otavio Salvador that linux-swap had > its name changed to "linux-swap(new)" a while back. I know this was ages > ago (January 2007!), but I'd like to suggest that this was poorly > designed, for the following reasons: > > Firstly, "old" and "new" is never a good way to name anything. When a > third format comes along, you either have to rename things or you have > to cope with "new" not being current any more. I used to live in a place > called "New Court" which was built in the early 19th century. :-) There > are perfectly good version numbers for the swap formats, 0 and 1 - why > not use them? > > Secondly, according to mkswap(8) swap v0 has not been supported since > Linux 2.5.22, and swap v1 has been supported since 2.1.117. In other > words, just about the entire Linux planet is using swap v1 now. It seems > wrong to make them all type "(new)" as a sort of code for "the one that > actually works". > > Thirdly, even if you want to call the current swap format something > other than "linux-swap", it would be most convenient if "linux-swap" > were supported for input. I suppose this means that people using > libparted still have to cope with the new name on output (?), but even > so it would be useful. > > Fourthly, linux_swap.c calls the formats "swap_v1" and "swap_v2" in its > function names, but mkswap uses the options -v0 and -v1 and calls the > versions thus. This seems eccentric. > > > I think this should be fixed before a 1.9.0 release, before people start > depending on the new behaviour too much. I agree, in principle, and will look at the patch next week. Thanks! _______________________________________________ parted-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/parted-devel
