Re: parted problem copying fat fs

[Andrew Clausen]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 01:01:26AM -0400, Brent Byer wrote:
>  aside:  the "print" command should *really* indicate FAT-16 or FAT-32,
>          not just the less useful FAT.  Or, since FAT-32 is so much
>          more prevalent, at least say FAT-16 when appropriate (and leave
>          FAT to mean/imply FAT-32).

When is it important to know if it's fat16 or fat32?

> I verified that <1> really was FAT-16 by booting up Win95a and seeing it.

It is irrelevant what <1> is, before the copy.  The only thing that is
relevant is what <2> is.  (<1> could be ext2, reiserfs, part of a
RAID array...)

> OK, here's the problem:
> 
>    cp 2 1        does perform the copy, BUT it results in <1> becoming FAT-32

Actually, think of copy as an operation on <2>, not <1>.  The information
is coming from <2>, not <1>.

Andrew