Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 09:58:18 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Richard S. Conto" <rsc@merit.edu> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, Gregory Bond <gnb@itga.com.au>, Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Subject: Re: New cdboot ISO available Message-ID: <XFMail.020115095818.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20020115160141.6FC3A5DDA0@segue.merit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15-Jan-02 Richard S. Conto wrote: > >> originally from: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> >> subject: Re: New cdboot ISO available >> date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:47:12 -0800 >> -------- > ... >>On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:20:21AM +1100, Gregory Bond wrote: >>> > Yes, but then who do you target the ISO at? I'm trying to judge how >>> > widely >>> > used the older machines are and if we should still use boot.flp on the >>> > ISO's >>> > to accomodate them. >>> >>> It depends on the nature and ubiquity of the "newer devices" that >>> get dropped off kern.flp. If we get to the stage where even a small >>> fraction of new systems aren't supported by kern.flp installs (because >>> they come with RAID cards etc that are not on kern.flp) then it will >>> be time to change. It's much easier for middling-old systems to boot >>> using kern.flp than it is for someone (to pick a hypothetical example) >>> with only a RAID controller not supported by kern.flp to hand-craft >>> a floppy boot image, or do a double install (once to supported IDE >>> drive, once to unsupported-by-kern.flp RAID device). Unless we want >>> to get into the game of having a mix-n-match selection of kern.flp >>> images! (This might be doable if we have 2 kern.flp images - one for >>> "older systems" from 386-P2, one for "newer systems" from P3/Duron on, >>> to pick a somewhat arbitary convention that should at least be fairly >>> easy to explain to newbies.) >> >>IMO, we crossed this line a while back when the first 10/100 Ethernet >>driver was removed from kern.flp. That's not as bad as a RAID >>controler, but it's pretty lame that we don't support any random >>ethernet NIC out of the box. >> >>-- Brooks > > Since there are two bootable CDs in the 4-cd set, why not have the first > use the "new" method, and the second use the old? My understanding is that > the 2nd disk was intended as a "repair" disk anyway. Would having limited > support for various devices impact that functionality? Most device drivers > could be dynamically loaded, the MSDOS file system doesn't need to be in the > kernel on a recovery disk, usb support for scanners, MP3 players, etc. > doesn't > need to be there, and so on. I think the 2nd CD still has to use boot.flp for now as I don't stick the mfsroot.gz on disc2. However, disc2 is actually a better candidate for cdboot to be honest. :) -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.020115095818.jhb>