Phil Nelson <phil@cs.wwu.edu> writes [reordered]


>The problem is that there are so many different ways to do things, you can't
>have "one size fits all" and have everyone happy about the one size.  Possibly
>we should not have a "standard" partitioning and make the user always enter
>their sizes.  Defaults could still be given here.

Yup. Any linearly-computed defaults that fits Rob's machine would be
far too small for a small-memory machine or even a 32-meg or 64-meg machine.

And there the limits get arbitrary: i want about 100Meg of swap
for  a 32M or 64M machine.

>The above was the reason for having custom installs.  But they should be 
>easier to access.  I'll look at adding an appropriate menu selection to
>do custom reselection.  (I'm not sure I'll have that much time to look
>before 1.3.)

Exactly so.  The option to customize is there, just as it was with
the scripts.

I have a better idea, though; add a menu entry that steals disk space
from one partition and adds it to an adjacent partition.

We already have overlap checks, adding ajdacency checks is easy, and
then it's just a matter of typing in the units to move and picking two
partitions.  

For brownie points, implement steals betwen non-adjacent partitions by
stealing the same amount of space between all intermediate partitions...