Subject: Re: Partition tables (was: Re: Another changer, another changer problem)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 10/15/1998 17:09:30
> I really like the "disk0" at sd0 stuff.
Thank you. :)
> A suggestion for situations where the "native" partition table can
> potentially support multiple disklabel'ed partitions (e.g MBR): allow
> "disk? at sd0" to match as many as there are.
I rather hesitate to do this; after all, I don't think anyone supports
disk0 at sd0
partition0 at disk0 number 0
partition1 at disk0 number 1
partition2 at disk0 number 4
partition3 at disk0 number 7
...especially for removables.
I much prefer the labelfs suggestion, so we have (for example)
disk0 at sd0
mount -t label /dev/disk0 /dev/disk0x
and as for MBRs and the like,
mount -t label -o type=MBR /dev/disk0 /dev/pdisk0
mount -t label -o type=BSD /dev/pdisk0/a /dev/pdisk1
mount -t label -o type=Linux /dev/pdisk0/b /dev/pdisk2
mount -t ffs /dev/pdisk1/a /
mount -t ffs /dev/pdisk1/g /usr
mount -t ext2fs /dev/pdisk2/e /mnt
The major problem I see with this is how it gets bootstrapped. I
haven't come up with any sort of answer for that yet.
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B