Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 08:56:14 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: ru@FreeBSD.ORG, Jordan Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/i386 dokern.sh Message-ID: <20011025085614.S75481@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20011002015114T.jkh@freebsd.org>; from jkh@FreeBSD.ORG on Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:51:14AM -0700 References: <20011002095946.A71912@sunbay.com> <20011002004926I.jkh@freebsd.org> <20011002114601.K74839@sunbay.com> <20011002015114T.jkh@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:51:14AM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote: >> I was just pointing out that lack of MSDOSFS option will lack the >> ability to install from the DOS partition, which is essential part >> of installation, no? > >Thank you Ruslan, but this I already knew since it's pretty obvious to >even the slowest reader that removing MSDOSFS will remove this as an >installation option. How about only removing part of MSDOSFS? For installation purposes, you only need to be able to read from the various filesystems (other than UFS). A read-only FS implementation will normally be significantly smaller than a R/W implementation (boot2 includes a R/O UFS implementation in less than 8KB). It should be possible to produce a cut-down module that is capable of reading an 8+3 FAT filesystem that is significantly smaller than the existing MSDOSFS module. Do enough people do installs from an MS-DOS FAT filesystem to make implementing this worthwhile? Of potentially more widespread use: The recent split of NFS into client and server modules means that supporting NFS installs now translates to less kernel bloat. Would it be worthwhile implementing a read-only NFS client? Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011025085614.S75481>