From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Jan  6 08:15:07 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA02154
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 08:15:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA02135
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 6 Jan 1996 08:14:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id DAA31297; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 03:11:24 +1100
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 03:11:24 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199601061611.DAA31297@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: iain@nwpeople.demon.co.uk, j@uriah.heep.sax.de
Subject: Re: Odd question.. ;-)
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

>> The disk was "dangerously dedicated".  Should that matter?

>Yes, that matters.  Read my other posting.

>Sysinstall always assignes ``sliced'' disk entries for everything
>except the root f/s.  Since disklabel -B destroys your fdisk table
>(which libdisk has been creating fine, even in the `dangerously
>dedicated' case), your slices are invalid.

The `dangerously dedicated' case should give a dummy fdisk table
identical to the one that `disklabel -B' writes, so `disklabel -B'
shouldn't affect the fdisk table.

Bruce