On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: >> I'd say. Anywhere does it say this? My understanding was that 'c' >> partition depicts the entire device. If this is correct, than it's not >> even close to describing it as 'freely changing' it's semantics as per >> kernel's mood. Artistic perhaps, but precise... not. > > hey, feel free to believe whatever you want.
it's not about the belief, it's about the understanding. > >> I don't mind not using 'c' partition for any explicit filesystems, but >> I don't want to do so on some ritualistic, unsupported-by-explanations >> 'fear' but rather through explicit understanding as to why, albeit >> customised, examples would not work (i.e. kernel-generated default >> disklabel and only 1 ffs on disk image as per previous post of mine). > > yeah, looking at the code is ritualistic my comments were *not* wrt source code, they were wrt to the aforementioned *artistic* definition/explanation of c's partition and it's view wrt kernel's default disklabel creation. > Guess we should stop making it available. I guess not :-)
