Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 11:01:41 -0500 From: "Richard S. Conto" <rsc@merit.edu> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Gregory Bond <gnb@itga.com.au>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, stable@FreeBSD.ORG, "Richard S. Conto" <rsc@merit.edu>, rsc@merit.edu Subject: Re: New cdboot ISO available Message-ID: <20020115160141.6FC3A5DDA0@segue.merit.edu> In-Reply-To: Message from Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> of "Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:47:12 PST." <20020114154712.A14214@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. 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?20020115160141.6FC3A5DDA0>