On Friday 11 February 2011, 22:21:18 Milko Krachounov wrote:
> What I'm suggesting that parted reads the partition table with more strict
> constraints so that such situations are avoided. Or are read with less
> strict constraints (with the appropriate warnings) so that the table can
> be edited a
On Friday 11 February 2011, 20:58:33 Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 2/6/2011 10:25 AM, Milko Krachounov wrote:
> > I created the following partition table with parted (the snipped is *not*
> > actual fdisk output, I edited it by hand)
> >
> > {{{
> >
> >Device Boot Start End Block
On 2/6/2011 10:25 AM, Milko Krachounov wrote:
> I created the following partition table with parted (the snipped is *not*
> actual fdisk output, I edited it by hand)
>
> {{{
>Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> /dev/sdf12048 196607 97280 83
Can anyone file the following bug in parted for me (the bug tracker claims that
it is spam and refuses to accept it)?
Bug title: Correctness of parted on MS-DOS partition constraints depends on
partition order
_log_meta_overlap_constraint in libparted/labels/dos.c does the following
questiona
