Is anything being done to un-break partition names?

[Pawel Jakub Dawidek]

On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:26:04PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> 
> On Jun 4, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:18:09PM -0700, Juli Mallett wrote:
> >>Hey folks,
> >>
> >>If I install 7.2 (or old 8-CURRENT) and partition a drive  
> >>"dangerously
> >>dedicated" and answer No when asked if I want to create a true
> >>partition entry, and then install as normal, my system is set up with
> >>partitions named like da0s1a.
> 
> That's your problem. In a DD setup, you don't have slices.
> 
> >> Newer 8-CURRENT instead names the
> >>devices da0a,
> 
> This is correct.
> 
> >
> >I don't think it was. For me it's a bug in GEOM_PART_MBR, which has
> >problems detecting MBRs properly.
> >
> >Shame on you, Marcel!:)
> 
> The bug is on your disk and as such in sysinstall. GEOM_PART_MBR
> detects the MBR just fine. If you don't have GEOM_PART_BSD in
> your kernel your will in fact get the MBR slices. The problem
> for you is in the fact that you have a BSD disklabel in sector
> 2, which takes precedence. A disk partitioned as a BSD disklabel
> nested in an MBR slice can *NEVER* have a BSD disklabel in the
> 2nd sector on the disk. The fact that there is a BSD disklabel
> in sector 2 means that the disk is DD and that is what you get
> for gpart.

This is interesting:

bridge:root:~# bsdlabel /dev/ad0
# /dev/ad0:
8 partitions:
#        size   offset    fstype   [fsize bsize bps/cpg]
  a: 10497792       16    unused        0     0       
  b:  2097152 10497808      swap                    
  c: 12594960        0    unused        0     0         # "raw" part, don't edit
bridge:root:~# bsdlabel /dev/ad0s1
# /dev/ad0s1:
8 partitions:
#        size   offset    fstype   [fsize bsize bps/cpg]
  a: 12070609   524288    4.2BSD     2048 16384 28552 
  b:   524288        0      swap                    
  c: 12594897        0    unused        0     0         # "raw" part, don't edit

Anyway, why BSD disklabel takes precedence over MBR for gpart?
Are you happy with users upgrading their system and finding it no longer
boots? I think that even a note in UPDATING is not enough, we should really
make it to just work after the upgrade. Why not to change priorities and
accept MBR first?

-- 
Pawel Jakub Dawidek                       http://www.wheel.pl
pjd at FreeBSD.org                           http://www.FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer                         Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-geom/attachments/20090605/d71f26bb/attachment.pgp