Ian Jackson writes:
> Bruce Perens writes ("Re: miscutils snag/questions for all"):
> > [Jeff Noxon:]
> > > Do we really want
> > > programs like fdisk to evolve differently in different distributions?
> >
> > Fdisk is a special issue. There is a new fdisk 3.0 which was distributed
> > separately. It is a command line program and we need to write a front
> > end for it.
>
> fdisk 3.0 is nowhere near a new version of fdisk 2.0. IMO it should
> have been called something different.
Agreed, but the util-linux people have already made up their minds to
replace fdisk 2.0 with fdisk 3.0. All recent fdisk 2 maintenance has
been happening in util-linux, and they're about to stop because the
program is overhacked, buggy, and ugly.
Apparently there is work going on to make a cfdisk front-end for fdisk 3.
> I'd like to continue to have an fdisk which is like fdisk 2, and I
> don't see why fdisk 2 can't be maintained (but then I haven't looked
> at the code).
There are bugs in fdisk 2 related to very large disks that I am
not in a position to work on myself. These bugs have been fixed in
fdisk 3.
I will contact the author of the fdisk 3 program and try to convince him
to keep maintaining the package outside of BOGUS. I don't think it is
too late for that. In addition, any changes or front-ends I write should
be available outside of Debian.
I think the best bet is fdisk 3, with two front ends: fdisk 2, and
DOS fdisk. Both are fairly easy to use.
> Will a fdisk 3 with a DOS-like front-end be as flexible as fdisk 2 ?
It would probably be somewhat more complicated than DOS. I would hesitate
to make it _too_ much more complicated. It should be easy for new users.
Jeff
