search for: l377

...write into the newly-generated smb.conf [3]. During a join, the code does not pass `dns_forwarder`[4]. Regards, Jonathon [1] https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Joining_a_Samba_DC_to_an_Existing_Active_Directory [2] https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/blob/samba-4.10.4/python/samba/netcmd/domain.py#L377 [3] https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/blob/samba-4.10.4/python/samba/provision/__init__.py#L2172 [4] https://gitlab.com/samba-team/samba/blob/samba-4.10.4/python/samba/join.py#L1738

...not necessary (indicating a user/tool that isn't being cautious), consider throwing a warning while still allowing the install and returning a success to the caller of the installer. > [1] > https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 > [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html > [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html -- -Gene

...Syslinux installation. So it may still be worth relaxing the check especially if, as Ady pointed out, not having all sectors addressable doesn't make a disk any less valid. Regards, /Pete [1] https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html

...rth relaxing the check especially if, as Ady pointed out, not > having all sectors addressable doesn't make a disk any less valid. > > Regards, > > /Pete > > > [1] > https://github.com/pbatard/rufus/blob/ade5639c0047ee813f71a8bfef8b1cc7be551009/src/format.c#L349-L377 > [2] http://hjem.get2net.dk/rune_moeller_barnkob/filesystems/fat.html > [3] http://pierrelib.pagesperso-orange.fr/filesystems/fat16.html I would like to point out that being able to allocate / address at least the whole Data Area is indeed the "common" way of calculating the...

Hi Ady, On 2016.02.25 02:08, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > There is an "extra" sector, in comparison to... what exactly? Sorry if I wasn't clear. I think I implied that the Large FAT32 fat size had an extra sector compared to minfatsize, when of course I meant the opposite (the Large FAT32 has one less sector than the minfatsize computed by the unpatched code, hence the check