Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 16:48:01 +0200 (MET DST) From: Alain Kalker <alain@Wit401402.student.utwente.nl> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: current@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Of slices and boot code.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950822162036.25768A-100000@Wit401402.student.utwente.nl> In-Reply-To: <22246.809061857@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Aug 1995, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > Would it be reasonable to assume that our current boot code will never > have a chance of dealing with the root partition via a "slice?" > > It's kind of a pity since I've gotten a lot of tech support emails > from people who were very confused that / showed up on `sd0a' while > everything else was on a slice. It makes a somewhat confusing model > (to the uninitiated) even more confusing since just when they think > they're understanding it (and, in fact, ARE) that comes along to trip > them up. Sigh. > > Jordan > Perhaps this confusion can be traced back to a probable mix-up of the terms 'partition' and 'slice' in the documentation. Both in the documentation on partitioning your disk on the installation disk (file '.../partition.hlp') and in '/usr/share/FAQ/Text/diskspace.FAQ' the terms are interchanged. The people that Jordan gets mail from might be confused by what is referred to as the "compatibility slice" in '.../partition.hlp'. The question IMHO really is then: is there a chance of _that_ going away..? -- PS: to Jordan: Could you please forward this to the documentation people? Greetings, Alain
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.950822162036.25768A-100000>