On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:56:06AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Ferenc Wagner <wferi@niif.hu> writes: > > > Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> writes: > > > >> Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes: > >> > >>> On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > >>> > >>>> I could go on to replace PED_SECTOR_SIZE_DEFAULT with dev->sector_size > >>>> throughout partman-base/parted_server.c, but I'm getting suspicious. > >>>> Isn't there a good reason for this state of affairs? > >>> > >>> Looks like this could possibly be a bug introduced by revision r37468 [1], > >>> which changed PED_SECTOR_SIZE to PED_SECTOR_SIZE_DEFAULT (partman-base 84). > >>> Looks like that change was made for compatibility with libparted 1.7. > >>> > >>> Whether changing it to dev->sector_size is correct depends of course on what > >>> the actual definition of PED_SECTOR_SIZE was in prior libparted versions. > >>> > >>> It could also be that the problem has always been there and that the use of > >>> PED_SECTOR_SIZE was always not correct (though maybe only in some places). > >>> > >>> This certainly needs to be checked very carefully. A good start could be to > >>> check whether the Sarge installer also has the bug as that has older > >>> versions of libparted and partman-base. > >>> > >>> Otavio: you did that change; any comments? > >> > >> I'll look into it. Nothing from the top of my head. > > > > Hi Otavio, > > > > did you find the time to look into this? > > I didn't. I was busy finishing a work task and plan to look into it > this week. > > I hope to get parted OK for d-i this week (this includes the s390 regression). And maybe the atari patch? Pretty please? ;) Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <stephen@marenka.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature