[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#265194: resizing needs to be mentioned more in the partitioning utility



> On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:04:41PM -0700, Dustin Harriman wrote:
>>
>> Also, the installation documentation here:
>> http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch06s03.html#id2514217
>> which talks about partitioning never mentions the word "resize".

Showing this diagram (with better formatting) in the docs (above) would go
a long way:

File system	 	detect	 	create	 	resize	 	copy	 	check
ext2		*		*		*1		*2		*3
ext3		*				*1		*2		*3
fat16		*		*		*4		*5		*
fat32		*		*		*		*		*
linux-swap		*		*		*		*		*
HFS		*
JFS		*
NTFS		*
ReiserFS		*		*6		*1, 6		*6		*6
UFS		*
XFS		*
Supported operations

Notes:

   1. For ext2, ext3 and reiserfs: the start of the partition must stay
fixed.
   2. For ext2, ext3: the partition you copy to must be bigger or exactly
the same size as the partition you copy from.
   3. For ext2 and ext3: the checking is limited to ensuring the resize
and copy commands will be ok.
   4. For fat: the size of the new partition after resizing or copying is
restricted by the cluster size. Parted can shrink the cluster size, so
you can always shrink your partition. However, if you can't use FAT32
for some reason, you may not be able to grow your partition.
   5. Parted supports both FAT16 and FAT32. Parted can convert file
systems between FAT16 and FAT32, if necessary.
   6. Reiserfs support is enabled if you install libreiserfs, available at
http://reiserfs.osdn.org.ua. (It is likely to be availabe soon from
http://www.namesys.com)

This diagram came straight from:
http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/parted.html

>> I
>> expect
>> this documentation to at least mention which types of partition are in
>> fact resizable:
>> ntfs? (I hope yes!)
>
> No. ntfs is completely unsupported by d-i although so many file systems
> are supported.

Ouch.  Of all filesystem types to be able to resize, this one is the most
sorely missed by a long shot, IMHO.  This is because most PC's out there
have one big NTFS partition on them (as shipped by virtually all PC
vendors, having Windows XP pre-installed).  IMHO, Therefore a huge
majority of "Windows refugees" would want this feature.

>> This additional information may be pivotal in people deciding to install
>> Debian whatsoever, as many people aren't ready to risk losing their
>> current Windows install, and don't have access to commercial software
>> likePartition Magic.  Even mentioning the resizing capabilites possible
>> with "qtparted", seen here:
>> http://qtparted.sourceforge.net/features.en.html
>> ...which is included on the bootable Linux utility CD "System Rescue CD",
>> available here:
>> http://www.sysresccd.org/
>> ...may lead to tons more Debian deployments. I know of one friend who
>> would install Sarge right now if he knew that the Sarge installation CD
>> could resize an NTFS partition during installation (or knew of a utility
>> that could in a proven fashion).

Upon further investigation, "qtparted" is just a fancy gui that makes
calls to command line utilities.  To resize NTFS partitions, it calls the
"ntfsresize" command, which comes in the Debian package "ntfstools".  The
version of ntfstools in sarge and sid is version 1.9.0-1, however the
newest version is 1.9.2, available in a statically linked format here:

http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/mlf/ezaz/ntfsresize.html#static

Due to it being statically linked, how realistic would it be to include it
in d-i, and have it be usable by the partitioning utility alongside GNU
parted?  Is there some political reason that GNU parted must be the only
utility allowing the resizing of partitions?

In other words, are there any non-obvious barriers to adding NTFS resizing
in d-i, granted the ntfsresize utility is sitting there begging to be used
for this purpose?

>
> Anton Zinoviev
>
Thanks for your explanations of how the partitioning utility in d-i works,
Anton.  It helped clear up alot of confusion.

Dustin Harriman

Root Shell Computer Support
http://rootshell.ca




Reply to: