Subject: Re: A new partition handling scheme: wedges
To: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/26/1998 13:00:50
> ... By default, the installation
> tools should use whatever partitioning scheme is most appropriate for
> that particular type of machine -- on PCs, the MBR; on Amigas, RDBs;
> etc. `Labels' should be valid on all systems if people want to use an
> architecture-neutral format (but one which is incompatible with other
> People already have to deal with two types of partitioning on many
> systems -- one for the boot ROM, and the other for NetBSD. Currently,
> some ports quite bogusly override what disklabel(8) does completely
> and don't even support native `labels'.
Yes, Amiga should allow translate disklabel writing back to RDB writing.
On my todo list.
However: there is no way an Amiga could directly boot off a RDB-less disk.
While it is possible to reserve some space in the RDB root block, or even
put it into a different block than zero (any of 0..15), we can not, alas, be
sure that AmigaOS RDB editors will respect a NetBSD native disklabel written
additionally to the RDB one. Well, this is a relatively minor problem... but...
AFAICT, every port which uses native disklabels stuffs them elsewhere (different
blocks, sometimes, and different offsets within the block).
What _is_ the canonical representation we should be using now? (Or do you
just say: "We don't use it consistently anyway")
Hmmm.... I start to like the "wedge" idea. It would allow
(Partitions have _names_ in Amiga RDBs, normally, and much of new-netbsd-on-
Amiga-confusion comes from either not understanding at first the concept of
Unixoid partitions, or from understanding it, not reading the fineprint, and
thus not understanding the somehow special translation NetBSD/Amiga disksubr.c