Bug 88413 - Enh: Please change choices for partition table header page
Summary: Enh: Please change choices for partition table header page
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1
Classification: Red Hat
Component: parted
Version: 2.1
Hardware: ia64
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Matt Wilson
QA Contact: Brock Organ
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2003-04-09 22:15 UTC by Glen A. Foster
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:06 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-04-09 23:36:20 UTC
Target Upstream Version:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Glen A. Foster 2003-04-09 22:15:00 UTC
Description of problem: The following text in the partition-header page is not
clear at all, and could be made so much easier just by changing the choices in
the buttons:

"This disk contain a valid Primary and Alternate GUID partition table but the
Protective MBR is invalid.  This generally means that the disk had GPR
partitions on it, but then a legacy partition editting tool was used to change
the partition table stored in the MBR.  Which data is valid, GPT, or MBR?  Yes
will assume the GPT information is correct, and re-write the PMBR.  No will
assume the MBR is correct, and erase the GPT information.  Ignore will assume
the MBR is correct, but not change the disk."

-- the three button choices are "Yes", "No", and "Ignore".

This enhancement request is to specifically address the general usability of
this page.  Please change the buttons (and the wordings of the button
explanations) to be "Keep GPT", "Keep MBR", and "Ignore".

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
AS2.1 for IA64 and later

Additional information: If you have to roll anything in anaconda for the Q2
errata, please, please, please change this as well.  It's low-risk to change the
text (isn't it)?  No logic changes are necesary other than possibly checking a
string for what's returned when a button is pressed, right?

Comment 1 Jeremy Katz 2003-04-09 23:30:21 UTC
Unfortunately, this is coming directly from parted (more or less)

Comment 2 Matt Wilson 2003-04-09 23:33:05 UTC
Yes, this is in generic exception handling code in parted, and we're not going
to be changing strings which would require new translation.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.