On Feb 13, 9:02am, Robert Elz wrote: } } Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 19:57:42 -0500 } From: Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> } Message-ID: <smusgws7beh....@linuxpal.mit.edu> } } | I can see how we got here, but the situation seems wrong from a logical } | consistency point of view. If gpt(8) is going to create wedges on } | adding a new partition, it should delete the wedge corresponding to a } | partition that it removes. } } Logically yes, but I suspect that we wouldn't like the result, just } as we didn't really like it when all gpt did was tell us that we needed } to make the wedge manually in order to access a newly added gpt partition. } } Perhaps a better solution would be to have gpt refuse to delete a } partition if there is an existing wedge for it in the kernel?
As stated before, gpt(8) is a tool for manipulating on-disk data structures. This is outside the scope of it. Also, disklabel(8) lets you do anything you want to a disklabel regardless of whether the partitons are mounted. Why would you expect gpt(8) to behave differently? } That would be more in line with how I (at least) would expect things } to work ... logically consistent or not. } }-- End of excerpt from Robert Elz