Re: Gparted will not label an existing FAT32 partition
On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:18:59 (+0000), Brian wrote:
> On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 20:53:17 +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
>
> > Le primidi 21 brumaire, an CCXXV, David Wright a écrit :
> > > Any reference. You see, I find label a very slippery word.
> > > You can label a disk at almost every level: a sticky label,
> >
> > True, but not really relevant.
> >
> > > a disklabel (partition table),
> >
> > This is BSD slang. But this was what I was referring to.
> >
> > > a filesystem label,
> >
> > Indeed. That is the most common one.
> >
> > > a volume label
> > > (perhaps those two are equivalent),
> >
> > I do not think "volume" means anything in the Linux world.
> >
> > > and whatever is handled by
> > > devlabel (which might be historic).
> >
> > It looks like a tool to make symlinks based on the above labels.
> >
> > > So I'm unsure what you mean by a partition label, where it's
> > > stored, and how it differs from a filesystem label.
> >
> > Well, the filesystem label is stored in the filesystem metadata, i.e.
> > probably the superblock. The partition label is stored in the partitions
> > metadata, i.e. the "partition table".
> >
> > > Is it new-fangled?
> >
> > MBR-style partition tables do not contain labels, if that is what you
> > are asking. But GPT does.
>
> May I say I appreciated the correction about labels being applied to
> file systems and not partitions. I'd done a copy and paste (with a
> change to a spelling) without any thought in mind to disabuse the OP
> about the technical aspects. It seemed more important to get him on
> the road.
>
> But, this is getting interesting.
Yes, I guess we have to be more careful about distinguishing partition
and filesystem labels now that GPT is common. In the OP's instance, we
know that filesystem labels were meant because "extended partition"
was mentioned, so it's an MBR with no partition labels sensu stricto.
Cheers,
David.
Reply to: