On 20150402_1142-0500, David Wright wrote: > Quoting Paul E Condon (pecon...@mesanetworks.net): > > I read the prior discussion as taking for granted the idea that one > > must have only one method of identifying individual partitions, > ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ > If you're referring to my post (which you quoted), then the opposite > is true. The opening paragraphs argues against LABELs as a panacea, > but later ones (and another posting in this thread) reveal that I use > them routinely in what are the right circumstances for me. > > (With top-posting, it can be difficult to tell precisely what you're > commenting on.) It applied to the whole conversation. At least that > was my intent. > > and > > that that method must be the latest to have arrived on the scene. For > > example, if everyone else in the world accepts your idea that > > LABEL=sda1 on the partition that was /dev/sda1 when Debian was > > installed is something that should *not*be*done*, *then* I can be very > > confident that my disk will not cause problems *because*of*an*identity* > > *clash*. > > That may be true for you personally, but your idea scales up to just > one computer. I have several. So do many others. Any time your LABEL is > "correct", it's redundant, and when it's made "incorrect" by changing > circumstances, it's confusing. > > > The whole scenario is false anyway. Who would let a disk > > arrives at his facility in the hands of a stranger be *mount*ed > > without first putting it in a USB disk carrier and using some system > > tools to take a look at what is recorded on it? And why would I offer > > my disk to anyone without *telling* them how it is labeled? > > Facility? Stranger? In my post I suggested that any one person, who > had taken your advice and LABELled their root partition as "sda1", > might take said drive out of that computer and put it into another one > of theirs, whereupon /dev/disk/by-label will have an entry like this: > > /dev/disk/by-label: > total 0 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 Mar 31 13:44 sda1 -> ../../sdb1 > > Confusing, unnecessary, avoidable.
To me, very informative of a situation that badly needs fixing by other means. > > > I see the argument here, mine as well as yours, as a clash of wildly > > imaginative false scenarios. > > Summarising: names/labels are important. Advising sda1 as a LABEL is > not a good idea. > > If you want a reference, take a look at RFC1178, page 2: > "Don't overload other terms already in common use." Like, for instance, 'window' ? When was the first use of the word, window, in English according to the OED? How many years was it in common use as referring to a common architectural feature of human habitations? And earlier than OED, there is Dr. Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, which provides a definition of 'window' that was current in 1755, over two centuries before the UNIX epoch. And then there's Humpty Dumpty's Rule for the definition of any word to consider. ;-) Cheers, and Peace, -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150403011255.gc3...@big.lan.gnu
