On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 10:10:10AM -0800, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> Yes, this is a sticky point.
> 
> What I have in mind is a solution will work well unless you radically
> re-partition the disk. It's a compromise, but to do anything else would
> mean we need some sort of historical record, which I think is really
> not-how-we-do-stuff.
> 
> Each partitioning scheme would have an idea of how many partitions it
> might have. For disklabel-based ones, that's either 8 or 16. Probably 16.
> So when such a scheme notices its partitioning scheme, it grabs a fixed
> number of partitions (probably 16), then fills in the ones that are there.

The static limit is the main problem as far as I'm concerned. For example,
MBRs recurse, so there's no upper limit on them. I wouldn't expect there
to be more than 16, but it *could* happen..

- Frank

-- 
Frank van der Linden                                    fvdl@wasabisystems.com
==============================================================================
Quality NetBSD Development, Support & Service.   http://www.wasabisystems.com/