> On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: > >> Sounds a little nonsensical to me. > >> > >> 1) for example, it would make no sense to 'shrink' the size of > >> conceptual 'whole disk' (esp. if such represents the entire *physical* > >> disk as per man pages) to be less than other partitions -- so > >> '*arbitrary* changing its [disk's] limits' is an over-generalization > >> in my opinion. > >> > >> 2) w.r.t. forward-compatibility, one cannot make any suppositions for > >> system's (kernel or userland) behavior in future versions/releases for > >> practically anything (e.g. the key-generating hash in vnconfig may not > >> be guaranteed to forever remain the same; the format of system calls > >> may change/evolve, disklabel format may/may-not change, sector-size > >> may become editable, etc.)... and I am certainly not looking this far > >> into the future (i.e. namely and most-likely I am considering the > >> behavior wrt current kernel w/o such being upgraded continuously). In > >> other words, I am perfectly happy to accept the failed 'mount/fsck' > >> attempts when/if differently-behaving kernel is being deployed. > > > > The source code defines the behaviour. > > > > Your words don't. > > > > Neither do yours :-) Although, some would also say that source code is > not always *defining*, but rather *implementing* the behavior (which > is standardized perhaps elsewhere)... but anyway -- potato, potato :-)
Oh cut the crap. krw and I have a view how it should work, and we code it. Then the code is the behaviour. Perhaps we made mistakes. Perhaps they'll be changed. But you are just spouting bullshit.
