On 04/26/11 18:48, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On 26/04/2011, at 1:31, Warner Losh wrote:
This is why I prefer IDs since they are nominally unique (UFS
ones, GPTs damn well better be :)
Although I concede it is rather annoying to work out which is
which, or type them out manually..
For things like ZFS, UUIDs aren't so bad because it hides them.
Yes, I use GPT with ZFS, it's good :)
For things like /etc/fstab, I prefer the named approach. This
allows me to survive a newfs on a partition if I have to without
having to hack my /etc/fstab. I have a large /tmp partition at
times, and it gets newfs'd if there's a bad problem...
Yeah, but.. IMHO if the installer supports it then it is dramatically
less painful..
I haven't looked to see how hard it is to add, hopefully I will get
some time to look RSN and it shouldn't be too difficult.
It's not difficult to add -- the issue is that the mechanism is
unreliable. It doesn't work for all partition types supporting labels,
it's hard to figure out what the name of the label provider is in a
generic way, and the label providers have a nasty habit of disappearing
periodically when you use the underlying provider for anything. Also,
retastes don't always work. For example, if I change the label of a GPT
partition, the label provider does not reflect the change until a disk
reattach (e.g. a reboot).
If it's a feature that we enable by default, and that the installer
relies upon, it has to work better than that.
-Nathan
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
