MT wrote: > Does that sufficiently clarify documentation? I think so. This could at least help some people who wonder about this behaviour.
> prefer not to change the semantics of these numbers as that might break > existing > setups in unexpected (and very dangerous) ways. I agree with you, but could a change be considered for one of the next "major releases" (and warn about the changes)? I think not to change this would be wrong, either. > Hope this helps, Thank you! TL wrote: > Yes, we need a better description in setup-storage, how the partitions > are numbered. We use the normal numbering the kernel does. Do you have > a patch for this? Unfortunatly no, I don't. Sorry for the late response. Best regards, Manuel Hachtkemper
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
