On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 11:21 -0400, James Laska wrote: > On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 11:15 -0400, Chris Lumens wrote: > > > Both look good to me, I wonder if this is F-11 material though. > > > > Yeah this is really late. Unfortunately the renumbering thing is > > hitting us in a couple really major ways: > > > > - The protected partitions get lost if you delete earlier partitions. > > - If you create some new partitions, then delete them, then create > > new ones. > > - If you delete logical partitions and then the extended partition, > > getting the sort order incorrect. > > > > If we don't fix this, we are going to see some serious problems in F11. > > The problem is that we are fundamentally changing how partitions are > > referenced in a couple places and that really needs more testing than we > > are going to be able to give it. > > I suspect, the above scenarios are more likely in custom partitioning > use cases (which seems common enough). It also breaks autopart if the initial disk layout contains multiple logical partitions. > > A few follow-up questions as it relates to F11 ... > > * If we don't fix this, are there workarounds we can document in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs The big problem is that autopart will be broken for setups with two or more preexisting logical partitions on a given disk, which is pretty common. We could post an updates.img, but most folks won't find it until it's too late. It might at least solve the autopart/clearpart case if we changed clearPartitions to iterate over the partitions in reverse order, FWIW. > * If we do fix this, what other partitioning areas would be > impacted? Would this warrant a reset of all F11 partitioning > testing? This impacts the sorting of partitioning actions, so it plays into every partitioning scenario. It has little effect on anything else. I cannot say it necessarily warrants a complete reset, but it will certainly require thorough testing across a variety of scenarios with some emphasis on multiple preexisting logical partitions. > * Should this bug be on the F11AnacondaBlocker list? Probably. Dave > > Thanks, > James > _______________________________________________ > Anaconda-devel-list mailing list > Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list