On Sat, 2012-12-29 at 21:40 -0800, Nathan Coulson wrote: > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would like to propose adding gptfdisk to LFS. > > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/gptfdisk/ > > > > It allows creation and management of GUID Partition Table (GPT) disks > > using a fdisk type syntax. It's much easier to use than gnu parted. > > > > After using a GPT partitioned disk for a while, I recommend it over the > > ancient BIOS/MBR partitioned disks. The package builds gdisk, cgdisk, > > sgdisk (similar to fdisk, cfdisk, and sfdisk), and fixparts. > > > > The table looks like: > > > > # gdisk -l /dev/sdc > > GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 0.8.5 > > > > Partition table scan: > > MBR: protective > > BSD: not present > > APM: not present > > GPT: present > > > > Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT. > > Disk /dev/sdc: 78165360 sectors, 37.3 GiB > > Logical sector size: 512 bytes > > Disk identifier (GUID): 1A083159-55E5-40A2-BC78-C269AB11A96E > > Partition table holds up to 128 entries > > First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 78165326 > > Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries > > Total free space is 299020 sectors (146.0 MiB) > > > > Number Start (sector) End (sector) Size Code Name > > 1 2048 23298000 11.1 GiB 8300 /opt for sdc2 > > 2 23592960 44040192 9.8 GiB 8300 / for lfs-7.2-rc1 > > 3 44042240 78165326 16.3 GiB 8300 / for svn-20121216 > > -------- > > When I created the first two partitions, I used GB instead of GiB so the > > ending points created some small gaps. > > > > The package requires libuuid (from util-linux) and ncurses. > > > > There are some optional libraries (ICU library at > > http://site.icu-project.org for unicode partition names) and sgdisk > > requires popt. > > > > The build requires editing or patching the Makefile if the ICU or popt > > library files are not available. Then a simple make. The executables > > and man pages are installed with a simple cp. > > > > ----- > > > > The other alternative is to put the package in BLFS but that makes LFS > > incomplete because it would not be available to manage a GPT disk by > > itself. We could put it in both LFS and BLFS (for the optional > > dependencies). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- Bruce > > > I do prefer it for it's simplicity over parted, but I think BLFS would > be good enough for that tool. As nice as it is, we don't use fdisk > or gdisk in LFS. (And in BLFS, we have the choice of parted or gdisk)
I agree. We use the host's tools to create the partition layout for LFS, so they can continue to be used should things need altering before hitting BLFS. It looks like a useful addition to BLFS though. Maybe an additional sentence or two in the note in chapter02/creatingpartition.xml could point the reader in the right direction for GPT and EFI partitioning schemes and related software? Thanks, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
