Hi John, I'm no longer involved with Parted, although I think the general principle is a good idea. Parted does have a "check" facility, but it is quite superficial at the moment, and can't recognize many common problems.
I'm sure the new Parted maintainers would be interested in patches ;) Cheers, Andrew On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 07:49:29AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote: > Andries > Andrew > I've been caught a couple of times on this. > > We needed to rebuild a Windows SBS server to a new disk, and resize the > C: and D: (actually it was labelled F: but never mind) partitions. > > As far as I could tell (and I tried), I could not copy C: from Windows, > so we ended up copying the source disk (80 Gb) with dd on Knoppix to the > target (bigger than 80 Gb) and mucking around with fdisk and/or cfdisk. > > Once we realised there was no active partition and rectified that it > worked a treat, but it could have taken a _very_ long time for us to > realise the problem, and many folk wouldn't have. > > > It's not always a mistake to have no active partition (eg Linux only), > but it often is, particularly when it's the boot drive and > DOS/Windows/Darwin is involved. > > I suggest that the disk partitioning tools in util-linux, and parted, be > altered so as to warn the user when the partition table being written > has one or more non-linux primary partitions and none of them is marked > active. > > What do you think? > _______________________________________________ bug-parted mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-parted
