So there's a problem with HFS on newer hardware, and the resulting decision is to completely yank all filesystem functionality?
The FAT code works, why yank it? The NTFS code works, why yank it?
This is a serious question. What possible usage does one have for gparted/libparted over something like fdisk now? 99.99% of my use case (and other's use case, if looking over various forums means anything) was resizing of partitions to install some some *ix.
My point wasn't really about HFS. All the filesystem-specific code will need to be adapted to changes in both hardware and in the target filesystems. What's going on here should make you question whether you really want to use gparted to resize partitions on new disks going forward. For my part, if a disk utility claims to work with my hardware, then it had better be tight.
My advice to you is to stick with the older versions of gparted.
All code has assumptions. As the rest of the software stack and hardware change, system software often needs to change with it to remain correct. With no active maintainer, "works" is a question, not a given.
The FAT code works, why yank it? The NTFS code works, why yank it?
This is a serious question. What possible usage does one have for gparted/libparted over something like fdisk now? 99.99% of my use case (and other's use case, if looking over various forums means anything) was resizing of partitions to install some some *ix.
This decision boggles my mind.