I just wanted to confirm that it indeed works for me.
Perhaps not very relevant, as by now everyone should have upgraded to
Etch, anyway.
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 06:11:27PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Friday 02 March 2007 03:11, Ben Hutchings wrote:
What is the intended difference in semantics between RESIZE_PARTITION
and VIRTUAL_RESIZE_PARTITION? In the resize_partition() function these
are distinguished by the
On Friday 02 March 2007 18:11, Frans Pop wrote:
This new patch works again. I've asked Colin Watson if he can review
your patch. Within the D-I team he currently has the best grasp of what
happens in this area of partman.
After some additional testing I have now committed the patch (r45661).
On Friday 02 March 2007 03:11, Ben Hutchings wrote:
What is the intended difference in semantics between RESIZE_PARTITION
and VIRTUAL_RESIZE_PARTITION? In the resize_partition() function these
are distinguished by the open_filesystem flag which implied to me that
in the latter case we
On Thursday 01 March 2007 06:11, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On further thinking, I realise there are several problems with the
patch:
1. It tries to probe even if open_filesystem is false (already
identified).
2. It can return after maximize_extended_partition() without rolling
that change back.
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 17:29 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Thursday 01 March 2007 06:11, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On further thinking, I realise there are several problems with the
patch:
1. It tries to probe even if open_filesystem is false (already
identified).
2. It can return after
Hi Ben,
Thanks for working on this issue.
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 01:52, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This is not a bug in libparted; parted_server is simply not specifying
the correct constraint for the resize operation.
Can you please explain in plain English how you arrived at that
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 01:52, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This patch might fix parted_server, but I don't know how to test it.
I've done some extensive testing repeatedly resizing (both down and up) an
NTFS Vista partition, and the patch works well. Vista boots correctly
after the resize
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 01:04 +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 01:52, Ben Hutchings wrote:
This patch might fix parted_server, but I don't know how to test it.
I've done some extensive testing repeatedly resizing (both down and up) an
NTFS Vista partition, and the patch
On further thinking, I realise there are several problems with the
patch:
1. It tries to probe even if open_filesystem is false (already
identified).
2. It can return after maximize_extended_partition() without rolling
that change back.
3. It doesn't check whether the existing invalid filesystem
10 matches
Mail list logo
