Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Ferenc Wagner wrote: >> >>> I could go on to replace PED_SECTOR_SIZE_DEFAULT with dev->sector_size >>> throughout partman-base/parted_server.c, but I'm getting suspicious. >>> Isn't there a good reason for this state of affairs? >> >> Looks like this could possibly be a bug introduced by revision r37468 [1], >> which changed PED_SECTOR_SIZE to PED_SECTOR_SIZE_DEFAULT (partman-base 84). >> Looks like that change was made for compatibility with libparted 1.7. >> >> Whether changing it to dev->sector_size is correct depends of course on what >> the actual definition of PED_SECTOR_SIZE was in prior libparted versions. >> >> It could also be that the problem has always been there and that the use of >> PED_SECTOR_SIZE was always not correct (though maybe only in some places). >> >> This certainly needs to be checked very carefully. A good start could be to >> check whether the Sarge installer also has the bug as that has older >> versions of libparted and partman-base. >> >> Otavio: you did that change; any comments? > > I'll look into it. Nothing from the top of my head.
Hi Otavio, did you find the time to look into this? http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/features.shtml says: * Support for logical sector sizes not equal to 512 Does parted 1.8.8 exhibit the same problem? I managed to compile it, but can't start on a ramdisk: # ~/installcd/parted/parted/parted /dev/ram1 Error: Error opening /dev/ram1: Invalid argument Retry/Cancel? c -- Thanks, Feri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
