On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 14:09 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:00:22PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > I'd rather not have to have a weird hack in anaconda for this > > as it requires keeping track of things like what partition table type it > > is and only doing it if we're on MS-DOS. Whereas parted already knows > > this when it goes to create a new partition table and we'd just need to > > update the initial MBR_BOOT_CODE it writes out (I'm guessing that's the > > bit that the signature is included in from quickly looking) > > Parted could write some nonzero value there, with some limite > probablity of it being a duplicate (like, based on the current time or > something), but that's the best it can do without also reading all the > other disks. There's always going to be a chance, but this is the case of 'new disk, put something on it' or 'new partition table on existing disk'. You have just as good a chance of ending up with conflicts if you move a disk between machines or add a new disk or any of a number of other things like that. It's easy to add a little after the fact app which can set up disks which aren't set up (or which don't have uniqueness) since at this point, there are many machines that will need some way of changing it as-is. But I think that having parted doing it for the initial setup makes some amount of sense. It's not great, but it's better than the present and at least starts to get to a way where people can be happier. If only BIOSes weren't broken and we could really use EDD 3.0... :-) Jeremy
