On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:52:17 -0600 Tobias Weingartner <weing...@tepid.org> wrote:
> > > > sense if it offered me the first available lba sector with > > > > partition type 0? i mean even if it doesnt want to offer any > > > > "responsible" value, 0 is wrong in any case on i386, as the > > > > first offset has to be at least 63... > > > > > > "WRONG" :) > > > > ok, the number should be S, as in sector. so if not usable > > value is offered, at least it shouldnt offer to overwrite the MBR. > > You did point a problem here. Having the default value outside of the > allowed range makes little sense. :) I'm asking for review and > testing of a diff I've cooked up to fix this one issue. If I understand things correctly, even a simple diff would result in requiring a *MASSIVE* testing effort across tons of hardware/archs. > > > A very long time ago, I posted a somewhat similar rant to this > > > same list. I got a very polite private message from Toby, > > > saying, "Ok, I'm tired of these complaints, what would you do > > > differently?" and to be honest...I never came up with a good > > > answer. > > > > i think i highlighted a couple of issues with very easy patches. > > esp. for much more skillful person than i am, e.g. Toby. > > Ugh. Ok, yes, I could do it. But honestly, I don't care to. The > last time a list bitched and moaned for an improvement of a particular > system, I spent a considerable amount of time implementing such. > When I asked for tests of the system a while later, I had 6 people > test. Six. Out of the 50+ requests for the essential feature, *SIX* > tested. So, now you would love it if fdisk was better. So would I. > But, I'm not going to expend any energy on this, and then have 1/2 > dozen people test on a dozen machines, a feature that has potential > for serious data loss if there are any bugs in it. > > The actual code is not hard. It's on the level of what a 2nd to 3rd > year CS student is capabale of. I'm just tired of being the one > that has to chase enough variety of machines/people/etc to do enough > different types of tests, with enough variety of other partition > munging OSen to have decent test coverage. Someone else can step up > and do this testing. And since the coding is fun, I'll leave the > coding for them as well as an incentive. :) > If you believe it is worth doing, and you don't mind applying the clue stick to teach me the failure/success modes I need to look/test for, I actually could do a fairly "*MASSIVE*" testing effort. Though they typically sit in stacks, unplugged, waiting for me to have a need for them, I have most all archs here, and many variations (systems) within each of the archs... and parts, lots of parts. How much testing (in archs, and machines, and test time length) would be really required? Is it a good use of time compared to what we would gain? For lack of a polite way to say it, you've basically described something destined towards a "OpenFDISK" project of it's own. The real trouble is I could not afford the power bill to continue wide coverage testing on a long term basis for an always on-going fdisk project. I would consider doing it once, but not forever. -- J.C. Roberts
