[openbeosstorage] Re: Partitioning rethink

Tyler Dauwalder <tyler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > OpenTracker also displays volumes that aren't mountable. Perhaps we
> > should just have a "mountable" flag=3D3D3F 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=3F

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=5FBAD=5FDATA - 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.

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

> > > on single multi-session volumes.
> >=3D20
> > Very nice! If you need any help with that (moral support and so on=3D
> > 20
> > ;-)) I'll be glad to help out.=3D20
> 
> Thanks, I'll be sure to hit you up for help when I need it. :-)
> 
> > Having UDF support would be really great
> > (even for R1) - do you plan on doing write support as well=3D3D3F
> Well, I'll at least write a mkudffs tool, but I might add write 
> support=3D20
> in the filesystem add-on too (especially if Windows will recognize 
> hard=3D20
> drive partitions formatted with udf).=3D20

Yeah, that would be a nice addition :-)

Adios...
   Axel.

Other related posts: