[lfs-dev] gptfdisk

Richard Melville richard.melville69 at googlemail.com
Sun Dec 30 08:07:51 PST 2012


I would like to propose adding gptfdisk to LFS.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gptfdisk/
>
> It allows creation and management of GUID Partition Table (GPT) disks
> using a fdisk type syntax.  It's much easier to use than gnu parted.
>
> After using a GPT partitioned disk for a while, I recommend it over the
> ancient BIOS/MBR partitioned disks.   The package builds gdisk, cgdisk,
> sgdisk (similar to fdisk, cfdisk, and sfdisk), and fixparts.
>
> The table looks like:
>
> # gdisk -l /dev/sdc
> GPT fdisk (gdisk) version 0.8.5
>
> Partition table scan:
>    MBR: protective
>    BSD: not present
>    APM: not present
>    GPT: present
>
> Found valid GPT with protective MBR; using GPT.
> Disk /dev/sdc: 78165360 sectors, 37.3 GiB
> Logical sector size: 512 bytes
> Disk identifier (GUID): 1A083159-55E5-40A2-BC78-C269AB11A96E
> Partition table holds up to 128 entries
> First usable sector is 34, last usable sector is 78165326
> Partitions will be aligned on 2048-sector boundaries
> Total free space is 299020 sectors (146.0 MiB)
>
> Number  Start (sector)    End (sector)  Size       Code  Name
>     1            2048        23298000   11.1 GiB    8300  /opt for sdc2
>     2        23592960        44040192   9.8 GiB     8300  / for lfs-7.2-rc1
>     3        44042240        78165326   16.3 GiB    8300  / for
> svn-20121216
> --------
> When I created the first two partitions, I used GB instead of GiB so the
> ending points created some small gaps.
>
> The package requires libuuid (from util-linux) and ncurses.
>
> There are some optional libraries (ICU library at
> http://site.icu-project.org for unicode partition names) and sgdisk
> requires popt.
>
> The build requires editing or patching the Makefile if the ICU or popt
> library files are not available.  Then a simple make. The executables
> and man pages are installed with a simple cp.
>
> -----
>
> The other alternative is to put the package in BLFS but that makes LFS
> incomplete because it would not be available to manage a GPT disk by
> itself.  We could put it in both LFS and BLFS (for the optional
> dependencies).
>
> Thoughts?
>
>    -- Bruce
>
>
I still think it's a good idea to add it to the LFS book for the following
reasons:-

1. It's basic system software.

2. It's a new and better way of doing things.

3.  It will obviate the problems some people on the LFS list have had with
devices randomly changing nomenclature.

4. The point immediately above should result in fewer posts.

5. The additional packages required by GPT build well using the latest LFS
book.

BLFS is an adjunct to the LFS book and therefore seems to me to be the
wrong place for such a package.

Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20121230/6fd2bd86/attachment.html>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list