Re: Amiga RDB

"Axel Dörfler" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ingo Weinhold" <bonefish-CFLBMwTPW48UNGrzBIF7/[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> > > Anyway, for now, I don't think we have to deal with it - just 
> > > report 
> > > the accessible partition size and we're happy.
> > I would actually rather like to do it right in the first place, 
> > i.e. 
> > let's either decide in favor one way or another, but not for 
> > preliminaries.
> > 
> > The question that comes to my mind is, what function has this 
> > reserved 
> > space sticked to a partition? I can't really think of anything that 
> > makes much sense. And if that's the case, then I'm tending to favor 
> > dealing with it in the stepmotherly way outlined earlier, instead 
> > of 
> > extending the API just to include a nice handling for that 
> > particular 
> > partitioning scheme.
> 
> I don't even know if it is used by any file system, so maybe we 
> should 
> even think about wanting to support it :-)
> But I could at least check if any of my collection of hard disks do 
> that :-)

That would be great! When moving last year, I disposed a lot of things 
I had no longer need for. Among those also all my Amiga stuff (not 
light-heartedly though). So, I can't check it myself.

> > I'm a bit uncertain, whether I start to dislike the 
> > BPartitionableSpace 
> > objects. In the case of this partitioning system they would 
> > certainly 
> > respect the reserved space attached to the partitions and thus make 
> > DriveSetup think, that the partitions can't be moved only a short 
> > distance, as that would invade non-partitionable space.
> 
> That reserved space would have to belong to the partition itself, I 
> think. But if you start to dislike the BPartitionableSpace objects, I 
> can't stop you ;-)

Hehe. I'm still waiting for a plea from Tyler to keep them. :-P

CU, Ingo