Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!metaphor!dragon!djh
From: djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: A-3000 & Partitions, cont'd
Message-ID: <1129@metaphor.Metaphor.COM>
Date: 3 May 90 04:32:36 GMT
References: <1122@metaphor.Metaphor.COM> <11244@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Sender: news@metaphor.Metaphor.COM
Reply-To: djh@dragon.metaphor.com (Dallas J. Hodgson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Metaphor Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Lines: 23


Andy:

Sorry, I don't see what the problem is. If a 2.0 partition has a boot
priority of 1 and a 1.3 partition has a boot priority of 2 for example,
the 2.0 partition should boot - thereby assigning all C:'s, DEVS:, LIBS:,
etc. to the correct directories on that partition as according to its
startup-sequence. If the priorities were reversed, than the 1.3 partition
would boot up accordingly - with 1.3 assignments.

I can see no conflict between making bootable 2.0 partitions readable
from bootable 1.3 paritions, or vice-versa. Just treat them as separate
devices, much like DF0: and DF1:. Surely you're not going to say that DIR
and LIST has problems with this concept? If each partition has a unique
name, you could use them instead when you're CD'ing or DIR'ing around.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dallas J. Hodgson               |     "This here's the wattle,             |
| Metaphor Computer Systems       |      It's the emblem of our land.        |
| Mountain View, Ca.              |      You can put it in a bottle,         |
| USENET : djh@metaphor.com       |      You can hold it in your hand."      |
+============================================================================+
| "The views I express are my own, and not necessarily those of my employer" |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+