On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 08:56 -0800, Mark Logan wrote: > James Carlson wrote: > > Garrett D'Amore writes: > > > > > I don't know about savings of effort, but if we're not making them > > > public interfaces, then I prefer them in /usr/lib/parted, where folks > > > are less likely to find them by "accident" and infer (possibly false) > > > things about their suitability for public use. > > > > > > That said, I'd hope that if we ever shipped the public ones, that this > > > project could be converted to use the public ones instead of keeping its > > > own private copies. > > > > > > > There are some questions behind what I'm asking. If these are hacked > > versions of those utilities, then I'd like to understand how we will > > deal with the 1991/061 rules. If they're not hacked, then I'm a > > little puzzled on why they're buried. It's not as if this project > > team appears to want to promise a great deal of stability for parted > > itself (they're saying "Volatile," so it can't be used easily within > > the installer), so I don't understand drawing the "support" line at > > parted itself and excepting away ntfsprogs. What support? > > > > > > I only buried ntfsprogs because I thought it would be easier to make > it through PSARC that way. I guess I miscalculated. I did not hack > ntfsprogs at all, it was the easiest thing to port. I have no problem > delivering ntfsprogs in its entirety and in /usr/bin, if that is the > consensus.
+1 from me. -M
