Experiences with Gpart

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Nov 5, 2008, at 4:17 AM, Vadim Goncharov wrote:

> Hi Marcel Moolenaar!
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:40:53 -0700; Marcel Moolenaar wrote about  
> 'Re: Experiences with Gpart':
>
>>>>>> Despite the intent of gpt's being to make such nesting
>>>>>> unnecessary, as
>>>>>> a means of defining the structure of gmirrors, which take up the
>>>>>> entire extent of whatever encloses them, the nesting was very
>>>>>> helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe nesting simply works if you comment the first if in
>>>>> g_part_gpt_probe() in
>>>>> sys/geom/part/g_part_gpt.c ? I don't get why this is restricted,
>>>>> should be
>>>>> my
>>>>> decision to nest or not imo.
>>>>
>>>> Nesting is not allowed as per the GPT specification.
>>>
>>> OK. It doesn't make much sense for slices too, but is still allowed.
>> A nested MBR provides for backward compatibility by
>> presenting a GPT partition as a drive to those legacy
>> OSes or tools. I don't think it was needed, but it
>> was envisioned that way, AFAICT. It makes sense in a
>> weird way.
>
> But, allowing for configuring partitioning as user wants (and  
> complex nesting,
> if one wish) was always strong benefit of the GEOM. So why not? It  
> is allowed
> author of this thread to manage mirrors the way he wants, not the  
> way somebody
> enforces. Unix is tools, not policy (c)

Gratuitous non-compliance in the name of freedom is
not the Unix-way of things.

-- 
Marcel Moolenaar
xcllnt at mac.com