Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 13:47:01 +0100 From: Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.lip6.fr> To: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net> Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Journaling Message-ID: <19991102134701.B18969@antioche.lip6.fr> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910301729120.69564-100000@kronos.alcnet.com>; from Kelly Yancey on Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 05:54:56PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9910301729120.69564-100000@kronos.alcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Oct 30, 1999 at 05:54:56PM -0400, Kelly Yancey wrote:
> Slightly off topic (as if the topic were about journalling anymore in
> this thread anyway :) )...
> From my perusal of the code, it looks as if the NetBSD change from
> 386BSD's partition ID of 165 (which we still use) to 169 is unrelated to
> the change to 16 partitions. Actually, I can't find where it is useful at
> all; I would have assumed that if they were going to break
> backward-compatibility by going to 16 partitions, switching MBR partition
> IDs at the same time would be logical.
> Does anyone here know the reasoning between switching MBR partition IDs?
It's because FreeBSD also uses 165, this makes it hard to install both OSes
on the same HD.
--
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI. Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
{Net,Free}BSD: 22 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19991102134701.B18969>