Kevin Wolf <[email protected]> writes:
> Am 10.11.2025 um 14:20 hat Markus Armbruster geschrieben:
>> BALATON Zoltan <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2025, Clément Chigot wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 11:07 AM Markus Armbruster <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Clément Chigot <[email protected]> writes:
>> >>>
>> >>>> This option tells whether a hard disk should be partitioned or not. It
>> >>>> defaults to true and have the prime effect of preventing a master boot
>> >>>> record (MBR) to be initialized.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is useful as some operating system (QNX, Rtems) don't
>> >>>> recognized FAT mounted disks (especially SD cards) if a MBR is present.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Clément Chigot <[email protected]>
[...]
>> >>> Not sure I like "partitioned". Is a disk with an MBR and a partition
>> >>> table contraining a single partition partitioned? Call it "mbr"?
>> >>
>> >> It used to be called "mbr/no-mbr" but Kevin suggested renaming it in
>> >> V1. Honestly I'm fine with both options:
>> >> - Technically, the option prevents MBR which has a side effect for
>> >> preventing partition tables
>>
>> Yes, because the partition table is part of the MBR. I'd rather name
>> the option after the entire thing it controls, not one of its parts.
>>
>> >> - Even it has a single partition, I think it makes sense to call a
>> >> disk "partitioned" as long as it has a partition table
>> >>
>> >> But I'm not that familiar with disk formats, etc. I'll let you decide
>> >> with Kevin, which one you prefer.
>>
>> Kevin is the maintainer, I just serve as advisor here.
>
> I figured that the meaning of "partitioned" is easier to understand for
> a casual user than having or not having an MBR ("I don't want to boot
> from this disk, why would I care about a boot record?").
Fair point.
Possible counter-points:
* The default is almost always right for the casual user. The
exception, as far as I understand, is certain guest OSes refuse to
play ball with certain devices when they have an MBR.
* The configuration interface isn't exactly casual-user-friendly to
begin with. @fat-type, what's that, and why do I care? @floppy,
what's that, and why do I care?
Anyway, you decide.
> But if people think that "mbr" is better, that's fine with me.
>
> The only thing I really didn't want is the negative "no-mbr" and the
> double negation in "no-mbr=off" that comes with it.
Yes, negative names should definitely be avoided for boolean options.
[...]
