On Sunday 06 April 2008, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > With the attached patch it becomes: > 4. XEN virtual disk 1, partition #1 (xvda1) - 5.4 GB Unknown > > And similarly for full-disk devices. Now: > * Does it make sense to output the disk number (1,2...)? IMO, yes. Other disk types also include an identification of the particular disk in that part of the description. If a sequence number based on the device number is the best we can do, then that will have to do. I would vote for starting the numbering at 1, not 0, as linking 1 to xvda is most natural. > * Should we allow multi-letter devices like /dev/xvdaa? Depends whether it is at all likely that it will be reached in practice... > * libparted should also recognize the device type, which isn't much > of a problem (based on a cursory look at the sources). But that > would just duplicate the info on the line at best. Probably > something else is needed... But what? I don't think duplication is disastrous. One option would be to just use "Virtual disk" in partman (without "Xen" before it). Then parted's description would be a useful further specification of the type of virtual disk. On Sunday 06 April 2008, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > I've noticed that Sid uses parted-1.7.1, which was released in > 2005... Only experimental has 1.8.8, which is fairly current. > Assuming there's a good reason for this, should the Debian version > incorporate these xvd changes? There have been several attempts to update parted, but each failed because of regressions. The plan is to update it for Lenny. Cheers, FJP
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.