From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Nov 20 8:58:26 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from cs.utep.edu (mail.cs.utep.edu [129.108.5.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C6737B479 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:58:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from gecko (gecko [129.108.5.51]) by cs.utep.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id eAKGur307007; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:56:53 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:56:51 -0700 (MST) From: X-Sender: janb@gecko To: FreeBSD Cc: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Removal of Disklabel In-Reply-To: <200011201458.IAA44992@KIWI-Computer.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I could not agree more. JAn > > I've never been a fan of this. May I make a recommendation (flame away, > boys): redo disklabel while we're at it. it seems counter-intuitive to > me, as well as wasteful, to make partition "c" the whole disk and skip "d" > altogether. IMHO, "da0s1" should refer to the whole disk, "da0s1a" should > be the first physical partition, "da0s1b" the second partition, etc. down > to "h". This gives us 8 partitions of any type: swap or FS. This is not > ambiguous, the "swapon" would detect in the label p_fstype and if it were > not equal to FS_SWAP it wouldn't try to swap-mount it. Same goes for any > FS mount, if p_fstype != FS_BSDFFS or whatnot, it wouldn't allow mounting > of that FS. > > I know this has been discussed and back in 2.2.5 IIRC the partitions/slices > were renamed from da0a to da0s1a. But it seems pointless and stupid to > keep propagating bad and very confusing methodologies just for historical > purposes. Keep it simple stupid and make it make sense, and yes I've > wanted to use past "h" before... > > One more gripe: why was s1 chosen to be the first logical slice and not > s0? Did we computer scientists start counting with 1 by accident? > > Should I present these suggestions to -current or will I get flamed there > too? =) No seriously, I think we should fix this (IMO) "broken" issue soon. > Those who have current systems won't have to rebuild their systems or > anything, just the sysinstaller should allocate logical partition numbers > in physical order, and build the fstab in such a way. That shouldn't break > current usage, just make old-timers think a little. ;) > > --Rick C. Petty, aka Snoopy rick@kiwi-computer.com > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message