>> Outside of the fact that it used to work this way because of much
>> less malleable disklabels, how about the ability to pre-partition a
>> disk for different uses at different times?
> Don't try to use latent information in the same label as your memory
> for each of your partitioning options -- keep separate notes!

So, you want me to keep that information somewhere that is trivial to
get separated from the disk?

No.

You don't know better than I do how I want my system run any more than
sysinst does.

> Since the output of disklabel can serve as its input it should be
> really easy to keep separate labels for different uses each in their
> own text file on some other disk that you're not re-partitioning,

There is not always any such disk connected.  In some cases there may
not be any such disk available.

> As far as I can see there should not ever be any need for overlapping
> partitions

Either you are far more lacking in imagination and/or experience than
my past interactions with you have led me to believe, or you have a far
more stringent definition of "need" than I do.

I believe in letting the computer store information like disk
partitioning for me.

I believe in keeping that information with the disk it applies to, to
the extent feasible.

I believe in keeping that information in as computer-usable a form as
practical (ie, try to avoid human copying between media).

You apparently consider maintaining non-overlapping partitions to be
reason enough outweigh the inconvenience of keeping notes elsewhere.
I don't.  We disagree.  That doesn't make either of us wrong - not that
that necessarily says what TRT for sysinst to do is in this case.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B