svn commit: r292058 - head/sbin/geom/class/part

[Ian Lepore]

On Sat, 2015-12-12 at 23:06 +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> On 12.12.15 21:26, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-12-12 at 21:10 +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
> > > On 12.12.15 20:20, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > > > I spent much of the last week fighting with "geom destroy" and
> > > > trying
> > > > to prevent the ressurection of old geoms during the creation of
> > > > new
> > > > ones.  It's a Big Mess and it doesn't really work well at all. 
> > > >  I
> > > > came
> > > > to the conclusion that it's not geom destroy that needs a force
> > > > flag so
> > > > much as geom create, where it would mean "it is okay to replace
> > > > any
> > > > existing geom with the new one."
> > > 
> > > Let's be honest. This problem is completely unrelated to what I
> > > committed.
> > > 
> > 
> > Oh yeah, totally.  One of the first things I discovered about this
> > problem was that dd'ing some zeroes (where some < the whole device)
> > didn't help.  But 'destroy -F' was mentioned in a panacea-like way,
> > andit's not really all that.
> 
> 1. The goal of this patch is helping to users with recovering its GPT
> from damage. User must not know internals of GPT to work with it and
> they don't know. If you position yourself as power user and you think
> that dd will do what you want, just continue use it. But as power
> user
> you should know and now you know what you need overwrite using dd to
> destroy GPT. Just another one sector in the end of the disk.
> 
> 2. All problems that you described in previous messages was related
> to
> MBR+BSD label. FreeBSD uses native GPT without any nested
> partitioning
> tables, and described problems aren't related to GPT.
> 
> 3. You are criticizing the change that doesn't affect you, so what
> you
> want? Do you want to revert this change? Ok, feel free to do it.
> Personally, I can recover or just recreate my partition tables
> without
> this change. The change was done, because several users asked me to
> do it.
> 
> > I don't think I'll bother to reply to the rest, since it seemed to
> > be
> > saying basically "raw data is available to you and beyond that this
> > stuff is supposed to be hard to work with".
> 

I start by agreeing with you that my remarks are *totally* unrelated to
your changes, and still you feel the need to rant again about how my
remarks are unrelated to your changes?

I was basically conveying information about some experiences I had to
the community at large, because they were vaguely related to some
remarks in one of the replies to your commit.  It is unfortunate that
you seem to have interpreted it as some sort of attack on your commit.

-- Ian