Re: hand book idea

wireless posted on Mon, 20 Jan 2014 23:24:31 -0500 as excerpted:

>> Users are of course free to use the partitioning tool they like. For
>> GPT partitions, we currently only document "parted" - is this not
>> sufficient?
>> Would gptfdisk be needed in certain cases?
>=20
> Well, imho gptfdisk could replace fdisk? It auto handles disks larger
> than 2T and supports many more features. This would not be for me to
> decide; I'd feel better about other folks chiming in, who have actually
> tried gptfdisk (gdisk), as it on the minimal install iso, before
> replacing fdisk with gptfdisk.
>=20
> It's an idea, that can be discussed, as fdisk is quite antiquated and
> limited, imho.

What I can say is that I've used gptfdisk/gdisk since before fdisk had gp=
t=20
support; it's the only thing I've used with gpt, and I haven't used=20
anything /but/ gpt since I switched over, some years ago now.

I heavily partition and use gpt (and thus gdisk) on everything from USB=20
sticks to multiple-identically-partitioned devices with either=20
(currently) multi-device btrfs or (older) mdraid on top, ssd and spinning=
=20
rust alike.

And gdisk and its in-package variants (cgdisk in particular, tho that was=
=20
introduced after I first started using gdisk) are what I have used to set=
=20
them all up, without issue so far. =3D:^)

The only reason I could think to continue using the old fdisk would be to=
=20
try to standardize on the same tool for both mbr and gpt partitioning. =20
And that I can't really comment on, since I've never used the newer fdisk=
=20
gpt functionality at all.

--=20
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman