On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 09:56:04AM +1000, Antony Mawer wrote:
On 30/03/2007 9:22 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 08:07:23AM +1000, Antony Mawer wrote:
Is it important to use 16 as the offset still, or is this a historical
piece of information that is no longer relevant? Or is this is a bug in
disklabel that should be fixed?
As I indicated in another post in this thread, it appears to
be vestigial. I have never used it for a bsdlabel(disklabel)
being done on a slice - since 1998.
I just went back and re-read your other messages in the thread. I must
have glossed over that part of them - my apologies! I too looked at my
sysinstall-created labels, and they were all at offset of 0.
I actually started writing my own partitioning/labelling tool based on
libdisk, as part of a custom install CD I was building, but discovered
that it did not support non-disk devices (eg. gmirror)... I started
looking at trying to hack support into libdisk to do so (and made some
success), but in the end decided that it was probably a task better
suited for someone that knows libdisk better than I...
Interesting. I have never monkeyed with that.
Maybe I should. I might learn something.
As a result I went back to looking at fdisk/bsdlabel to see what I could
do using them instead...