On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 02:44:36PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Greywolf wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Leo Weppelman wrote:
> > 
> > # On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 12:48:53PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> > # > On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Leo Weppelman wrote:
> > # > > 
> > # > >   * The basis of the generic-label is the current dislabel definition
> > # > >     (as defined in 'include/disklabel.h'). The additions are:
> > # > >       - 52 (2*26 == [a-zA-Z]) partitions (MAX_GENERIC_PARTITIONS)
> > # > 
> > # > I'd vote for 64 partitions, and shoving the "whole disk" one at #63. For
> > # > now, ports could keep shoving a "whole disk" partition at #2 or #3 (c or
> > # > d).
> > # 
> > # I started out with the 64 idea myself until I tried to think up the name
> > # of partitions above 52 ;-) So, do you have a suggestion?

I should have said: 'a suggestion that would not need a massive rewrite of
all userland applications interpreting disknames'... I should have known that
omitting this would unleash massive creativity ;-) So, for the first round
of disklabel changes, I will bump the number of partitions to 64 and leave
the new decoding of the partition namespace to a separate project (rendering
the last 11 partitions useless for the moment).

> I'd vote for X Y Z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai "" for partiton 49 -> 63.

My suggestion for the raw-device would be partition zero. Otherwise, what
are you planning to do when we bump to, say, 128 partitions? Move it again?


Leo.