From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 12 11:52:25 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA16976 for current-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:52:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA16968 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 11:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA26052; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:40:03 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199701121940.MAA26052@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Partition naming [Was: Adding Hard Drives - Prepping] To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:40:02 -0700 (MST) Cc: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "J Wunsch" at Jan 12, 97 11:34:44 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > : What about backwards-compatibility to themselves? I think that's > > : the biggest issue. > > > > I believe they just did it since they hadn't done a release at that > > stage yet. > > Well, but as long as _we_ didn't solve this problem for FreeBSD, > there's no chance to bump the number here. :( There is no inhernet reason that putting a disklabel on a "partition" of an already disklabeled "slice" would not work. All it would require is applying the partition detection mechanism recursively. I've already suggested that this should be the way things work under devfs, anyway. There is also no inherent reason you couldn't have multiple extended partitions (to use the DOS terminology that 99% of the rest of the world is using, with us a confusing exception). Just because *DOS* won't understand them doesn't mean BSD wouldn't. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.