cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/conf GENERIC src/sys/arm/conf EP80219 src/sys/conf NOTES files files.powerpc options src/sys/geom geom_apple.c geom_gpt.c src/sys/geom/part g_part.c g_part.h g_part_apm.c g_part_gpt.c g_part_if.m src/sys/i386/conf GENERIC ...

Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt at
Thu Feb 8 17:44:40 UTC 2007

On Feb 8, 2007, at 12:43 AM, Alexander Leidinger wrote:

> Quoting Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt at> (from Wed, 7 Feb 2007  
> 12:42:08 -0800):
>> On Feb 7, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Robert Watson wrote:
>>> Does this mean we can expect to see the disabling of GEOM   
>>> exclusive-use protections disappear from normal administrative   
>>> activities soon, as there will now be approved channels to   
>>> incrementally change the layout of in-use partition tables?
>> Yes, that's the idea. A tool will be developed first that uses
>> these verbs (though I already have a regression test suite
>> capable of creating and modifying APM and GPT partitions).
> May I suggest to look at sade(1) for this purpose?

I am aware of sade(8). As a sysinstall(8) offspring and based
on libdisk, there's nothing to be gained from it. Except maybe
its name. I think sade(8) should not have been created. As a
way to make sysinstall(8) expendable, I'm sure it will live up
to the task. Though not for long; since it has the same flaws
and weaknesses as sysinstall(8), it's in need of replacement
just as sysinstall(8) is. It has been since it's birth. It's
a sad story of the live of a tool that should never have been

No, sade(8) will not be the basis for an all-in-one partitioning
tool. It doesn't have the right genes. I will be spending most
of my time kluding around all kinds of limitations and flawed
assumptions knowing that the end result will just be as limited
and flawed as the code I started from. That would be a waste of
my time...

Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt at

More information about the cvs-src mailing list