Hi,

Eric Furman wrote on Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 04:18:02AM -0400:

> Its been explained to you already.
> You're just being a troll now.

Eric, please don't insult users.
Just because i misunderstand a question doesn't mean it's a stupid question.
Repeating an unanswered question is not trolling.

I don't know why Mikael wants to know this, but the question
as such wasn't answered yet.

> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015, at 03:53 AM, Mikael wrote:

>> which FS types are available in the disklabel tool?

The list is in the header file /usr/include/sys/disklabel.h,
  static char *fstypenames[]

I don't think this is documented, not even in readlabelfs(3) or
in disklabel(5).

I'm not an expert in this area, but from the list in the header file,
i suspect this.  The FS type is used for two things.

  1. Mark legacy file system types you might find on extremely
     old disks, like 4.1BSD.  Mikael is not likely to need to
     worry about that.

  2. Mark non-OpenBSD filesystems that OpenBSD (fully or partially)
     supports, like msdos, cd9660, ext2fs, ntfs, ...
     But you almost never put those inside the OpenBSD area of your
     disks, so you don't need to type their names into disklabel(8).
     Instead, such file systems usually have their own architecture-
     dependent partitions (e.g. MBR partitions) and the kernel
     autogenerates a non-permanent disklabel when needed.  So you
     almost never need to worry about them.

So probably it isn't documented because users almost never need to
do anything manually in this respect.

Mikael, why do you ask?  What is the actual problem you want to
solve?  Read a disk that nobody touched for 35 years?  Write a disk
that can be read by a machine which hadn't its operating system
upgraded for 35 years?

If it's just "i have no special needs but i can configure something
here but i don't know the options", i'd recommend you just stop
worrying and don't touch the defaults.  In general, in particular
with low-level tools like this, in particular when it's not even
documented, the message the developers are trying to send is "use
the defaults unless you have very special needs and you know what
you are doing".  Nothing interesting to see here, move on...

Yours,
  Ingo

Reply via email to