Roman Zippel wrote:
that was evident. Since most linux based distros don't include Atari
PTBL support in their kernels this won't help much, unfortunately.
Avoiding the PTBL incompatibilities by accessing the partitions directly
is still the better solution, IMHO.
If you forgot to include a 'without that silly bootblock', I'd actually
agree with you. :)
The main problem is simply nothing under Linux knows about PTBL, adding
that support would be quite a bit of work and all they would do is to just
ignore it anyway.
Why does something under Linux need to know about the simulated PTBL?
That's what I am missing. The host partitions (or partition image files)
will appear as /dev/sd[a-g]1 under Linux-m68k automagically. Linux-m68k
recognizes the simulated PTBL so everything will work out-of-the-box,
transparently, automagically...
Please bear with me and try to explain me one more time in simple words
what is wrong with the host partition <-> aranym partition mapping approach.
Please tell me just a single clear advantage I would have that this _adds_
to Linux?
as said above, the disk space is a partition for both the host and the
system running inside of ARAnyM. This is 1:1 mapping, it just makes
sense and allows formatting and mounting the disk space from both host
and guest equally. Adding an extra layer of partitions inside of ARAnyM
would break the possibility of easy mounting of the disk image from the
host.
So to answer your question, the simulated MBR and PTBL clearly adds the
possibility of simple and easy mounting of the partition from host which
is ideal for copying files between host and guest, for example.
Petr
P.S. I don't belive you didn't know this. There must be some kind of
basic misunderstanding somewhere but you're tired to say that ;-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
