Re: miscutils snag/questions for all

[Jeff Noxon <jeff@router.patch.net>]

Ian Jackson writes:
> Bruce Perens writes ("Re: miscutils snag/questions for all"):
> > [Jeff Noxon:]
> > > Do we really want
> > > programs like fdisk to evolve differently in different distributions?
> > 
> > Fdisk is a special issue. There is a new fdisk 3.0 which was distributed
> > separately. It is a command line program and we need to write a front
> > end for it.
> 
> fdisk 3.0 is nowhere near a new version of fdisk 2.0.  IMO it should
> have been called something different.

Agreed, but the util-linux people have already made up their minds to
replace fdisk 2.0 with fdisk 3.0.  All recent fdisk 2 maintenance has
been happening in util-linux, and they're about to stop because the
program is overhacked, buggy, and ugly.

Apparently there is work going on to make a cfdisk front-end for fdisk 3.

> I'd like to continue to have an fdisk which is like fdisk 2, and I
> don't see why fdisk 2 can't be maintained (but then I haven't looked
> at the code).

There are bugs in fdisk 2 related to very large disks that I am
not in a position to work on myself.  These bugs have been fixed in
fdisk 3.

I will contact the author of the fdisk 3 program and try to convince him
to keep maintaining the package outside of BOGUS.  I don't think it is
too late for that.  In addition, any changes or front-ends I write should
be available outside of Debian.

I think the best bet is fdisk 3, with two front ends:  fdisk 2, and
DOS fdisk.  Both are fairly easy to use.

> Will a fdisk 3 with a DOS-like front-end be as flexible as fdisk 2 ?

It would probably be somewhat more complicated than DOS.  I would hesitate
to make it _too_ much more complicated.  It should be easy for new users.

Jeff