[Parted-maintainers] Bug#380226: Bug#379835: Recommend to tag #380226 "etch-ignore"; #379835 downgraded to important

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:21:00PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:59:34AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:

> > There are currently three RC bugs open related to the resizing of NTFS 3.1 
> > partitions as created by Windows Vista.

> > - #379628: ntfsresize - upstream bug, but disputed; I can reproduce it
> >            reliably though; needs confirmation by someone else
> > - #380226: libparted - clear issue, recently further traced during BSP in
> >            Utrecht; needs attention from Debian maintainer and upstream
> > - #379835: partman - no bug in partman itself, but the result of the two
> >            listed above (blocked by both)

> > I have today uploaded a version of partman-partitioning that includes a 
> > check for NTFS 3.1 partitions and refuses to resize in that case; earlier 
> > NTFS partitions (NT, XP, 2000) should still be resizable.
> > As partman is now "safe" I am downgrading #379835 to important.

> > For #380226 I recommend tagging it 'etch-ignore'. 
> > The reason I think it's safe to do that is that it may only manifest 
> > itself in the installer. I'm unsure where else and how libparted is used 
> > though.
> > I have tried resizing an NTFS 3.1 partition using parted, and that 
> > correctly left the starting partition unchanged, so parted is unaffected.

> > IMO #379628 should not be ignored for Etch and it would be nice if someone 
> > else would try to either reproduce the bug or prove me wrong. There is 
> > plenty of information in the BR for that. Without a working ntfsresize, 
> > resizing NTFS 3.1 partitions is a no-op anyway.

> I'm having a hard time distilling the information in these bug reports into
> a summary of what each bug is actually about or what the current status is.

Ok, I see that bug #380226 does have a reasonable title after reading the
end of this bug log.  I'm not sure there's any reason this bug would be
specific to NTFS partitions, though, is there?

Anyway, I stand by the statement that I don't think this would be
appropriate to ignore for etch.  Has anyone tried Bas's suggested
workaround, to see if it does cause problems on older systems?

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon at debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/