I have edited this page to add to the beginning a different way of expanding the root FS. I think that this is an operation that most colinux users will have to perform, and there needs to be a simple and reliable way of doing it at the beginning of this article. I think that simply doing a recursive copy of the root directory is a terrible way of going about this, and is bound to cause problems (I have to admit that I tried it and gentoo gave me errors from which I could not recover). Since the linux system is bound to have the tools necessary to do this properly (dd and e2fstools), it does not make sense to give users the impression that they need cygwin to accomplish it this way. This is my first edit here; let me know if I'm out of line. Duckwizard 08:39, 7 Sep 2006 (CEST)
Addendum: I also think we should change the FAQ in a similar fashion, but it seems that it would be presumptuous of me to do so at this time. Duckwizard 08:40, 7 Sep 2006 (CEST)
Addendum #2: I also think that we should remove a majority of this page's contents, as it's highly confusing to have so much conflicting information in such a disorganized fashion. Perhaps we should settle on the "best" way, and perhaps a single alternative (even if the method I just added is neither) and remove the rest or move it to a sub-article? Duckwizard 08:43, 7 Sep 2006 (CEST)
I am afraid that I have added yet another method.. ouch! Perhaps all the "Add a second partition" entries could be moved to a page for this purpose and this page left purely for the actual resizing of a partition???
KevinFord 14:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Kevin, please talk not into the article. Letz talk here about article. I will try to resort the sections, that users can better see the difference between copy into new image (that includes a full backup) and the critically "resize". The FAQ is what the most users found, and the FAQ28 was often changed (more as this article here). HenryNe 18:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No probs Henry, I wasn't sure if discussions triggered a message like changing the article would.
In my case, I would have preferred the best (in this context safest) method in the HowTo and referenced from the FAQ because this article is where Google put me, so dangerous advice (which I can make no judgements about because my Linux knowledge is limited to using RedHat for a while a few years back) was the first thing I picked up without seeing the FAQ (well not Q28 anyway).
I used toporesize and it caused me problems, I then looked at the other methods and went down one of the routes using a somewhat simpler method that worked. My only intention was to make that available; if it is a dangerous way to proceed then I don't know, I can only say that it is similar to other methods in the article which were not marked as dangerous (apart from the usual perils of messing with files).
If a method is dodgy (mine included), I would prefer an article that has the one best and safest method linked from the FAQ with all others removed. Just a preference, given that you can't be certain how people are going to find this article.
KevinFord 13:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
And having had a look at it, I can only say that I wish it was like that when Google dropped me there. Bravo!
KevinFord 13:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)