In message <p05200f26ba10b7cdec2f@[128.113.24.47]>, Garance A Drosihn writes:
>This still sounds a little too definitive to me, as if we are
>absolutely sure what that partition is. I think that's where
>some of the debate came from. I (for one) wouldn't be quite so
>jumpy about the idea, if we changed it to:
>
>real ,{0x0B, "DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT"}
>gad-idea ,{0x1B, "Possibly a Hidden DOS or Windows 95, FAT32"}
>
>real ,{0x0C, "DOS or Windows 95 with 32 bit FAT (LBA)"}
>gad-idea ,{0x1C, "Possibly a Hidden DOS or Windows 95, FAT32 (LBA)"}
>
>I wouldn't mind there being an informational message in fdisk
>like that, as long as it is clear the system will not try to do
>anything with these hidden partitions.
Well, you are wasting peoples time right now, because there is no
way this will get sufficient priority to get into 5.0-RC1.
And as I said before: _If_ we want to support this "hidden" feature,
we should not do so by doubling the size of the table, but by
scanning it again looking for a match with the 0x10 bit flipped.
I will not even consider it until I get a patch implemented that way.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
