From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Installer, ISO9660, etc.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 11:23:46 +0200
Message-ID: <87zicbxr6l.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20170627221608.A23B52013B@smtp.hushmail.com>
	<20170628154943.36021286@scratchpost.org>
	<20170705152024.4dfde1c5@scratchpost.org> <87mv8gbhur.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
	<20170707181315.2f998f1d@scratchpost.org> <877ezhv0dt.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20170710154118.2c0262eb@scratchpost.org> <8737a43t03.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20170710232726.0004e2d3@scratchpost.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42525)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1dUrOb-0000ZZ-NK
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 05:23:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1dUrOY-0004KI-J9
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 05:23:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20170710232726.0004e2d3@scratchpost.org> (Danny Milosavljevic's
	message of "Mon, 10 Jul 2017 23:27:26 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Heya,

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:

> But this "partition?" thing would mean that having a partition table is n=
ow mandatory, right?  Is that really supposed to be the case?  The partitio=
n table has a magic mark (0x55 0xAA) in order for it *not* to be mandatory =
(i.e. if you want to use the whole disk without partitioning anything, go r=
ight ahead) and I can still remember using (floppy) disks which had no part=
ition table.

=E2=80=98partition?=E2=80=99 is meant to return true when given a partition=
, so yes, it
assumes there=E2=80=99s a partition table somewhere.  :-)

In general, I think that=E2=80=99s a reasonable assumption.  Is it really a
problem to always have a partition table?

Ludo=E2=80=99.