On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 19:52 -0500, Phillip Susi wrote: > On 01/28/2014 04:41 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > > Well some people don't want to do so... whether that makes sense > > or not.. is probably up to them :) > > Sure, but they are just as likely to continue to be ignorant of this > type code and never use it. > > > Sure and that's likely the best approach,... but there is not only > > Linux ;-) > > So are there any other operating systems that want to or already are > using these codes? > > > Again... other systems may use it... there is the ID for the ESP, > > which is definitely used... and you never know which other system > > (other OS, bootloader) comes a long and tries to do something based > > on it. > > The possibility that someone some day may use it isn't a good reason > to add it. The ESP has a special ID because the UEFI standard > requires it, and that causes enough trouble as it is. As I've said... use it or not... :) ... this mail was just an information which I've sent to all GPT capable open source partition editors I knew. > I also don't see any point in a > code for LUKS, though pure a pure dm-crypt code would at least have a use. Well the reason for that is simply, that I think, conceptually it would be a bad idea to have the same code used for both, since these are different types of "containers" (the one having the LUKS header the other not). Now I only a dm-crypt GPT type would have been defined, people would have used that for LUKS as well... which is - as said - IMHO not very clean. > Ummm... how does it prove your point? You admit that it was a bad > idea that caused many issues... and somehow that makes repeating the > same mistake a good idea? The bad thing about 0xFD for MD auto assembly is not that there was some type defined, but that it was used for something fragile. Defining a GPT type for LUKS/dm-crypt is just like a placeholder-type, so that people/tools who do set a type in any case aren't tempted to set something stupid. > > Aprart from that one would usually rather try not to run around > > shouting that one has an encrypted container... > Yet you propose doing exactly that via the partition type code. Yeah I know... but again... one isn't forced to set it... ;-) People also tend to use plain dm-crypt for swap... and if such partition is wanted to be marked as plain dm-crypt... that would be the way to go... Anyway... guess we can stop that pointless discussion... Some people wanted such code... whether it's useful or not is something everybody can decide on his own... I just wanted to inform the part editors about this, so that they can take it up in their lists of well known types - if they want. Cheers, Chris.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
