Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 02:06:22 +0100 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fdisk headache Message-ID: <Mutt.19970126020622.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <32EAA3C7.41C67EA6@whistle.com>; from Julian Elischer on Jan 25, 1997 16:22:31 -0800 References: <9701252225.AA13971@cabri.obs-besancon.fr> <Mutt.19970126003302.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <32EAA3C7.41C67EA6@whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Julian Elischer wrote: > I think it is bad form to do this.. Mmmaybe. > I always put an fdisk partition table on the disk.. Believe it or not -- even the version i've been posting writes a dummy fdisk table. > of course that depends on whether it's a bootable disk or not.. > (or ever might need to be) ...and this one is totally irrelevant from the fdisk table. The -B option to disklabel is responsible for this. The BSD label becomes the master boot record -- that's why the valid fdisk table is not needed. Of course, there's one thing that won't work with this method: nextboot. OTOH, the people who require nextboot and those who use ``dangerously dedicated'' mode are mostly mutually exclusive. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Mutt.19970126020622.j>