On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Manuel Bouyer wrote:

>On Mon, Jun 12, 2000 at 09:27:40AM -0400, Andrew Brown wrote:
>> no.  that would have been silly.  :)
>
>Sure, that's why I didn't understand it :)
>
>> 
>> although as i understand it, the major obstacle is that the minor
>> numbers are crammed together with no space for more partitions, yes?
>
>Yes.
>
>> that's why i suggested the new major number.
>
>Sure it's a solution, but it's not the best one and I don't think we
>have time to implement it before the branch anyway.
>

Ok, it sounds like this will have to wait, but it would be nice if it
could appear in current after the branch. Most ports still seem to use
8 entries, but a handful use 16 - from a maintenance point of view I
would have thought a common disktab size would be better. I guess the 
figure of 8 is partly historical/partly to allow compatability with
other systems e.g SunOS.  I'll put in a PR.

Dave

--
=====================================================================
Computing Services Dept         Phone/Fax: 0151-794-3731/3759
The University of Liverpool     Email: dtyson@liv.ac.uk
Chadwick Tower, Peach Street    WWW:   http://www.liv.ac.uk/~dtyson	
Liverpool L69 7ZF               Public Domain O/S: www.netbsd.org
=====================================================================