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 :-)
