Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 22:05:13 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> Cc: marcel@FreeBSD.org, Juli Mallett <juli@clockworksquid.com>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is anything being done to un-break partition names? Message-ID: <20090605200512.GA2313@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <46FB00ED-62DC-4924-A84A-8C34B26DA22E@mac.com> References: <eaa228be0906041618k6e6db227m9627946f3e0d4980@mail.gmail.com> <20090605051203.GD1705@garage.freebsd.pl> <46FB00ED-62DC-4924-A84A-8C34B26DA22E@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:26:04PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >=20 > On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >=20 > >On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:18:09PM -0700, Juli Mallett wrote: > >>Hey folks, > >> > >>If I install 7.2 (or old 8-CURRENT) and partition a drive =20 > >>"dangerously > >>dedicated" and answer No when asked if I want to create a true > >>partition entry, and then install as normal, my system is set up with > >>partitions named like da0s1a. >=20 > That's your problem. In a DD setup, you don't have slices. >=20 > >> Newer 8-CURRENT instead names the > >>devices da0a, >=20 > This is correct. >=20 > > > >I don't think it was. For me it's a bug in GEOM_PART_MBR, which has > >problems detecting MBRs properly. > > > >Shame on you, Marcel!:) >=20 > The bug is on your disk and as such in sysinstall. GEOM_PART_MBR > detects the MBR just fine. If you don't have GEOM_PART_BSD in > your kernel your will in fact get the MBR slices. The problem > for you is in the fact that you have a BSD disklabel in sector > 2, which takes precedence. A disk partitioned as a BSD disklabel > nested in an MBR slice can *NEVER* have a BSD disklabel in the > 2nd sector on the disk. The fact that there is a BSD disklabel > in sector 2 means that the disk is DD and that is what you get > for gpart. This is interesting: bridge:root:~# bsdlabel /dev/ad0 # /dev/ad0: 8 partitions: # size offset fstype [fsize bsize bps/cpg] a: 10497792 16 unused 0 0 =20 b: 2097152 10497808 swap =20 c: 12594960 0 unused 0 0 # "raw" part, don't= edit bridge:root:~# bsdlabel /dev/ad0s1 # /dev/ad0s1: 8 partitions: # size offset fstype [fsize bsize bps/cpg] a: 12070609 524288 4.2BSD 2048 16384 28552=20 b: 524288 0 swap =20 c: 12594897 0 unused 0 0 # "raw" part, don't= edit Anyway, why BSD disklabel takes precedence over MBR for gpart? Are you happy with users upgrading their system and finding it no longer boots? I think that even a note in UPDATING is not enough, we should really make it to just work after the upgrade. Why not to change priorities and accept MBR first? --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFKKXp4ForvXbEpPzQRAhTMAKCFXlakn3hSs2EQmmKdY8bIDFY0QACgmbcb UtaV7UDeX8TyYWVB6GBUrAI= =U87Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090605200512.GA2313>