on 23/04/2010 13:34 Peter Schuller said the following:
quoted text
>> It's easy.
> 
> Thank you for posting the example. I never really understood that
> gpart was to be the generic tool; I thought it was gpt specific.
> Obviously I should have read up better.
> 
> Is gpart to be considered "tested", "stable", "production quality"
> and/or "default" now then, or is it still cutting edge/experimental?

Yes, it's "tested", "stable", "production quality" and/or "default".
All other tools are slowly rotting now, but can be fixed to correctly works via
GEOM interface the same way gpart does now.
E.g. see Andrey's work on sade(8).

quoted text
> So for example, would it make sense to submit patches (not promising
> anything) to adjust the handbook and relegate disklabel to an
> historical artifact?

gpart is the way to go and is the best tool to use on recent FreeBSD.

-- 
Andriy Gapon
_______________________________________________
freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"