[Parted-maintainers] Bug#578097: [parted-devel] Debian Bug #578097: No support for CMS-formatted disks

[Jim Meyering]

Stephen Powell wrote:
> As promised earlier today, I now have the following patch files on my
> web site ready for download:
>
> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/vtoc.h.diff   (apply to include/parted/vtoc.h)
> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/dasd.c.diff   (apply to libparted/labels/dasd.c)
> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/fdasd.c.diff  (apply to libparted/labels/fdasd.c)
> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/parted/vtoc.c.diff   (apply to libparted/labels/vtoc.c)
>
> I have not made any updates to NEWS.  You can edit that as you see
> fit.  These are ordinary "context diffs", with three lines of context.
> I don't understand this "git" stuff.  I've never used it.  Sorry.
> My starting point was the Debian source package for parted, version 2.2-5.
>
> To my way of thinking, these patches are logically one fix, which I
> would describe as "corrections to partition size and location
> calculations for type 1 partitions for s390 dasd".  If you want to

I don't often see context diffs, as opposed to unified diffs.
Most people prefer to read the latter.  You can generate them with diff -u
if you're using GNU diff, or with git diff if you ever get around
to using git.

I've confirmed that those patches do apply locally and removed a couple
of trialing spaces so "make syntax-check" still passes.

Once I have confirmation that the FSF has received your paperwork,
I'll review and test.

One way that you can help in the mean time is by writing a slightly
more detailed summary of what changed.  For example
  * what is it that would fail without your patch, but works with it?
  * how does your improvement make things better?
That is the sort of information I'd like to put in NEWS.
Does this count as a bug fix?  It seems so, but there's also
the free-space change that looks more like an improvement than a bug fix.
I haven't looked at details yet...