> > values ('BSD[DEFGH]') are mapped to a single partition type and assigned
> > to the partitions in the order they appear in the RDB.  Most people probably
> > have their partitions set up as 'BSDR', 'BSDS', 'BSDD', 'BSDE'...  This
> > setup should still work, but if the partitions are in a little different
> > order, things won't map so good.  On one of my disks I have the partitions
> > as 'BSDR', 'BSDH', 'BSDD', 'BSDE', 'BSDF', 'BSDG', 'BSDS' [the last partition
> > was slightly larger than the second, so I exchanged them - they originally
> > were in order].  This results in the 'BSDH' partition being assigned to 'd'
> > and the 'BSDD' partition assigned to 'e'.  As a result, /etc/fstab is no
> > longer correct.
> 
> Eh, simple question, sorry, but isn't such a behavior plain braindead? I used
> different DOS types *on purpose* to be able to exchange partitions on the
> fly. If I wanted the current behavior, there'd be only one type.. ARGL...
> 
	Enter soapbox mode:

	I suppose it all depends on how you look at the partitioning
	pair-O-digm. Under the other Unixi they don't use unique identifiers
	to decide which goes where, it's simply their assigned in order of
	their appearance in the tables. Under this view the new scheme is
	consistant with other architectures and might simplify generic
	support for Amiga.

	Other people, yourself included, want the type name to matter so you
	can move it around at will and have the assignments match.

	I guess to be consistant with ADOS, AmigaUNIX and how other arch's
	do things the newer method makes more sense although it makes it
	a bitch to move partition names around arbitrarily. ADOS has DOS\?
	partition names, Amix has UNI\?.
	
	To be consistant NetBSD probably should call it's partitions BSD\? or
	extend the Amix model and use UNI\?. UNI\1 is s5 format, UNI\2 is
	paging, UNI\3 is 4.2 UFS. UNI\4 could be new style UFS and UNI\5 could
	be the 4.4 log file system. Or we could say fork() Amix and use UNI\1
	as BSD UFS, UNI\2 as paging and UNI\3 as 4.4 log fs.
	
	This would be more consistant than either then new or old NetBSD ways
	as it jibes with the precident in ADOS and AMIX. Actually, by using the
	Amix UNI\? values the 2.04 and above ROMs would grok them as UNIX
	partitions as the newer ROMS know about UNI\? stuff.

	As I don't move partition names around arbitrarily I guess I'm for
	the new method. I can see why you'd consider it braindead but I
	don't see the moving of partitions happening often enough to matter.
	As for changing it, it is now consistant with how the other ports
	handle their partitions, in order, and that seems more important to
	keep the Amiga port in step with the other ports.

	All comes back to what individuals feel should be the goal of NetBSD
	Amiga.
	
	If it's to make the Amiga port as close to standard ports
	as possible then the newer method, maybe with UNI\? names, should
	be used.
	
	If it's to do whatever would be cool for the Amiga and
	don't care if it differs from other ports then you should definitely
	keep the old method as it's easier to play musical disks and partitions.

	Whatever flips your flipper I guess...

		End of soapbox speech,

		-Rob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------