>> - keep new dev numbers strictly in sync (like sparc and sparc64 do)
   > i think this is the crux of the problem; for a purely cosmetic reason
   > a different device format was chosen.
   
   Purely cosmetic?  I thought it was done to avoid a flag day in /dev
   when switching from an 8-partition kernel to a 16-partition kernel.
   
   Of course, you may consider that "purely cosmetic".  Personally, I'm
   inclined to agree, but I suspect a lot of relatively Unix-naïve users
   would disagree.


i think you misunderstand me.

i mean that when the amd64 platform was created, it did not follow
the "hacky" i386 device numbering scheme used for partitions but
put all 16 partitions as minor N..N+15.  in doing so, it became
incompatible with i386.  i call it cosmetic because who really cares
what minor number a device has?  i care about it's name, owner &
modes...

i approve of the (oldish, now) change that allowed i386 to gain
16 platforms without breaking old systems.


.mrg.