Re: Partitioning rethink

"Axel D=F6rfler"  <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Tyler Dauwalder <tyler-cyCl/[email protected]> wrote:

You should really add the date to this line to prevent people from 
starting to doubt their short-term memory. ;-)

> > > OpenTracker also displays volumes that aren't mountable. Perhaps 
> > > we
> > > should just have a "mountable" flag=3D3D3D3F In any way, if there 
> > > is no 
> > > file
> > > system for this partition, it just can't be mountable :))
> > Is there a reason unmountable volumes are displayed=3D3F
> 
> Just for the user, so that he knows "yes, it does recognize the 
> partition (my precious data aren't lost), but it can't mount them, 
> because the system might not know about the file system".
> Dunno if it really achieves this, since it could also mean "Yes, it 
> sees the partition, but it can't mount it, because all of my precious 
> data are lost" :-))
> 
> If a reason could be added, that would probably be the best way:
> - "unsupported file system" if no file system could be found
> - "corrupted data" if the file system check returned B=3D5FBAD=3D5FDATA -
>  that 
> should be returned if the partition is recognized as fitting, but 
> some 
> of its parameters are not, i.e. the volume has all BFS magic values, 
> but the block size does not match the real amount, or similar things.

BPartition could be extended by a method Status(), which would return 
something like 
B=5FPARTTITION=5F{PARTITIONED,MOUNTED,UNMOUNTED,CORRUPT,UNSUPPORTED=5FDISK=5FSY
STEM}.

> Not sure though, if it's worth the effort.

Shouldn't be that much work. The FS add-ons and partition modules need 
to return that information somehow, but that's it basically.

[...]

CU, Ingo