On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sounds a little nonsensical to me. >> >> >> >> 1) for example, it would make no sense to 'shrink' the size of >> >> conceptual 'whole disk' (esp. if such represents the entire *physical* >> >> disk as per man pages) to be less than other partitions -- so >> >> '*arbitrary* changing its [disk's] limits' is an over-generalization >> >> in my opinion. >> >> >> >> 2) w.r.t. forward-compatibility, one cannot make any suppositions for >> >> system's (kernel or userland) behavior in future versions/releases for >> >> practically anything (e.g. the key-generating hash in vnconfig may not >> >> be guaranteed to forever remain the same; the format of system calls >> >> may change/evolve, disklabel format may/may-not change, sector-size >> >> may become editable, etc.)... and I am certainly not looking this far >> >> into the future (i.e. namely and most-likely I am considering the >> >> behavior wrt current kernel w/o such being upgraded continuously). In >> >> other words, I am perfectly happy to accept the failed 'mount/fsck' >> >> attempts when/if differently-behaving kernel is being deployed. >> > >> > The source code defines the behaviour. >> > >> > Your words don't. >> > >> >> Neither do yours :-) Although, some would also say that source code is >> not always *defining*, but rather *implementing* the behavior (which >> is standardized perhaps elsewhere)... but anyway -- potato, potato :-) > > Oh cut the crap. > > krw and I have a view how it should work, and we code it. > Then the code is the behaviour. > > Perhaps we made mistakes. Perhaps they'll be changed. > > But you are just spouting bullshit. >
:-) :-) :-) relax, take a pill -- no need to get emotional. besides I don't think we are seeing things that much differently. I didn't say you were making mistakes, but if you make krap-inviting statements like "the source code *defines* the behavior" then expect the likewise, albeit not-that-serious, replies. Besides, the code may well be acting like implementation and definition in one place, so no need to take such a heated bait to my light replies. I'll stop now :-) chill -- I don't mean to get a flame-war started, peace dude :-)
