>>>> [...when we go from 64 to 128...]
>>> I don't forsee us ever moving this number again. I think we should
>>> get it right now, and leave it alone.
>> I tend to agree from our current situation.  But I keep remembering
>> the '64KB is enough' phrase ;-)
> True.... ;-)

I too have trouble imagining a need for more than 64 partitions.

Today.

I too am very leery of suggesting no such need will arise.
ftp.netbsd.org is getting a 47G disk in a matter of days, if not
already.  Terabyte disks are only a matter of time.

But on the other hand, if wedges are done right, this is not an issue;
the old 8-partitions limit would have been plenty if it were possible
to partition recursively.  And with wedges, recursive partitioning
borders on trivial.

>>> raw == partition 0 would be fine too.
>> We can also stick with "raw == partition 2" I don't have much
>> trouble with that either.
> Oh I'd vote for the raw partition being at one end or the other of
> the list; either partition 0 or partition 63.  With raw == 0, then
> partition a would be minor # 1.

Yeah...but I still don't see any need for a "raw partition" with
wedges.  Just access the underlying device directly rather than doing
anything with the wedge partition devices.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B