[Thus spake Greg A. Woods ("GAW: ") 2:39pm...]

GAW: If you want to repartition the disk for different uses then fine,
GAW: repartition it -- properly and uniquely each and every time.

That's your methodology, and I can respect it.

Please don't belittle mine by claiming yours makes more sense.

GAW: Don't try to use latent information in the same label as your memory for
GAW: each of your partitioning options -- keep separate notes!  Since the
GAW: output of disklabel can serve as its input it should be really easy to
GAW: keep separate labels for different uses each in their own text file on
GAW: some other disk that you're not re-partitioning, perhaps along with some
GAW: documenting notes to remind you of how you use each scheme.
GAW:
GAW: Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to do?  It seems to me
GAW: you're just being lazy and trying to avoid the most simple little
GAW: "disklabel" step when you change how you use a disk.
GAW:
GAW: As far as I can see there should not ever be any need for overlapping
GAW: partitions (other than a whole-disk partition like 'c', and 'd' on i386)
GAW: to ever co-exist at the same time during any given specific use of the
GAW: disk -- and you can re-partition it at any time to your heart's content,
GAW: but keep each partitioning scheme in a separate off-disk label.

"As far as I can see."  i.e. that's your opinion.  Fine and well,
but sometimes I work a bit differently, and somewhat "outside the
box", especially when the "box" is built after the situation arises.

So please don't advocate something that likes to think it's smarter
than what I wish to do.

				--*greywolf;
--
You are carrying:
    one red potion
    one oil lamp
    50 feet of rope
Puns remaining: 0
What now? _