[Touch-packages] [Bug 1415077] Re: resize2fs -P minimum size differs greatly between v1.42.10 and v1.42.9

2015-01-28 Thread Scott Moser
Ted, thanks for your response, and sorry for the spam. Can you just verify that this specific bit seems correct: | On that derived image, I see 'resize2fs -P' numbers like: | trusty: 274500 | utopic: 358400 | vivid: 358400 | The 83900 blocks out of a 358400 seems significant (23% of the f

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1415077] Re: resize2fs -P minimum size differs greatly between v1.42.10 and v1.42.9

2015-01-28 Thread Theodore Ts'o
Changing to invalid, will not fix upsteam. ** Changed in: e2fsprogs (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to e2fsprogs in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1415077 T

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1415077] Re: resize2fs -P minimum size differs greatly between v1.42.10 and v1.42.9

2015-01-28 Thread Theodore Ts'o
The change was deliberate, because under some extreme circumstances you could end up corrupting the file system image when resize2fs aborted in the middle of a shrink operation. This tends to make some users cranky when they lose their data. If you had bothered to read the entire git commit desc

[Touch-packages] [Bug 1415077] Re: resize2fs -P minimum size differs greatly between v1.42.10 and v1.42.9

2015-01-27 Thread Chris J Arges
** Summary changed: - resize2fs behavior differs greatly between trusty and utopic and vivid + resize2fs -P minimum size differs greatly between v1.42.10 and v1.42.9 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to e2fsprogs