>> I believe that this PR is incorrect.

>> The `c' partition is supposed to correspond with the NetBSD
>> partition in the DOS partition table.

>> The `d' partition is supposed to be the whole disk.

> I still have one of my drives labeled the same as it was under 0.8
> and probably 386bsd 0.1 before that and it does have the partitions
> "reversed" at least by your above definition... And I know that the
> drives were labeled like that for a reason.  [...]  I have a strong
> feeling that you're right, but am curious why the hell I've been
> doing it backwards for so damn long...

Perhaps because "traditionally" (ie, when not sharing disks and such),
c has been the whole disk, with all seven other partitions available
for "real" use?  (Personally, I find this tendency to attribute
semantics to some partition letters quite annoying.  It's bad enough to
lose 1/8 of the available partitions to a whole-pack partition, and I
recently ran into another system that hijacked paritition h for
something, and what's more, only raw partition h - block partition h
was what it "should" have been.  I'd much rather provide different
devices, or bump things up to 16 partitions per disk....)

					der Mouse

			    mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu