-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/14/2014 03:28 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> The compelling reason for the change, other than just following
> mdadm's suggestion is Doug's example scenario from the bz entry:
>
> "It's possible, although it means you have a broken setup, that
> y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07/14/2014 01:11 PM, Rod Smith wrote:
>> How is this at all related? Windows already ignores 0x83.
>
> It does with the default set of drivers. What if somebody loads a
> Linux filesystem driver, though? I don't happen to know what
> actually ha
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:11:26PM -0400, Rod Smith wrote:
> All that said, there is a further complication, and this one isn't parted's
> fault: The 0xDA type code that's suggested by the mdadm man page is NOT
> specific to Linux RAID. According to
> http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/partitions/partition
On 07/14/2014 12:01 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
I find this logic troubling. It's rather similar to the logic that
lead to parted using the pre-existing Microsoft basic data GUID
when making Linux partitions on GPT disks; out of a pool of just
under infinite alternative GUIDs. "Oh it doesn't really
