From owner-cvs-all Sat Mar 18 10:52: 7 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F265237B7DC; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 10:51:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA10481; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:51:56 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id LAA97132; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:51:53 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200003181851.LAA97132@harmony.village.org> To: KATO Takenori Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/pc98 Makefile Makefile.inc src/sbin/pc98/fdisk Makefile fdisk.8 fdisk.c Cc: asmodai@bart.nl, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 19 Mar 2000 02:15:22 +0900." <20000319021522P.kato@gneiss.eps.nagoya-u.ac.jp> References: <20000319021522P.kato@gneiss.eps.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <20000318175710.C36838@lucifer.bart.nl> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 11:51:53 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <20000319021522P.kato@gneiss.eps.nagoya-u.ac.jp> KATO Takenori writes: : I prefer sharing to folking. But sharing the code could cause : maintenance problem. Partition tables of PC-AT and PC98 are quite : different from each other. If fdisk.c is shared, you may need to take : care of the difference between PC98 and PC-AT when you change fdisk.c. : But you are free of care if PC98 has its own fdisk.c. I think kato-san may be right here. Looks like there are many small differences between a pc98 partition table and a pc-at partition table. It is in a different format, there are 8 partitions rather than 4, the ID codes for each partition are different, the cyl/sect stuff is encoded differently, the basic units of measure are different (cyl vs sector) etc. If this were a c++ program, then it might make sense to have a partition base class, and two different derived classes. But C and the structure of the current fdisk program conspire to make that *MUCH* harder than it needs to be. Eg, one could do it, but it would mean almost a complete rewrite of the fdisk code from scratch. Not a bad idea, but that wasn't what was done. I have a question about the interface of the new fdisk. I recently wrote a diskprep program that uses fdisk. If the pc98 fdisk's output is the same or substantially similar to i386's fdisk for the -s case, and if fdisk98 uses -I to initialize things, then it should just work. A quick eyeball of the code says yes. fdisk is a mess, a real mess. It is hard to hack, hard to use and generally one of the more user and hacker hostile programs in the tree. Hmmm, now where did I put that port of OpenBSD's fdisk... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message