* Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-15 13:25]:
> Currently I don't have working testing environment for partman so I'd
> better not dare to commit the changes myself. Because of that the
> only valuable merits and downsides are what you fill you will be able
> to test. You can apply my
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 10:03:08AM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-15 09:09]:
> > 3. Change partman-ext2r0/valid_filesystems/ext2r0 to expect ext2
> >instead of ext2r0 in $id/detected_filesystem:
> >
> > [ -f $id/detected_filesystem -a -f
* Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-15 09:09]:
> 3. Change partman-ext2r0/valid_filesystems/ext2r0 to expect ext2
>instead of ext2r0 in $id/detected_filesystem:
>
> [ -f $id/detected_filesystem -a -f $id/detected_ext2r0 ] \
> && [ "$(cat $id/detected_filesystem)"
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 12:12:17PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
> Anton, do you have a more elegant way or is it okay to apply the patch
> I proposed?
I think it is better to move the code from this patch to
partman-ext2r0. For example a script update.d/21detected_ext2r0 with
the following c
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-03 20:02]:
> * Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-19 02:14]:
> > partman doesn't recognize ext2 revision 0 as ext2r0 but shows it as
> > ext2. Ideally, what it should do is this: if it finds an ext2 file
> > system, it should run "tune2fs
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-03 20:02]:
> --- partman-base/update.d/detected_filesystem (revision 31824)
> +++ partman-base/update.d/detected_filesystem (working copy)
> @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@
> rm -f $id/detected_filesystem
> else
> [ -d $id ] || mkdir $id
> + i
* Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-19 02:14]:
> partman doesn't recognize ext2 revision 0 as ext2r0 but shows it as
> ext2. Ideally, what it should do is this: if it finds an ext2 file
> system, it should run "tune2fs -l" over the partition.
Is the patch below acceptable?
Comments:
7 matches
Mail list logo
