Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 08:35:23 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Wilko Bulte <wilko@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: miniboot.iso (was: Re: Floppies for ALPHA) Message-ID: <20030803153523.GB72914@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030803003542.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030803014647.GD98015@dragon.nuxi.com> <XFMail.20030803003542.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:35:42AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On 03-Aug-2003 David O'Brien wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:42:49PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > >> OK, the attached (trivial) patch can be used to create the > >> miniboot.iso. Its contents is identical to what goes on the > >> miniinst.iso, except for NOT putting any distributions, docs, > >> and ports. > >> > >> The uncompressed size for i386 is 46M, bzip2(1) compressed size > >> is 16M, which I think many people can afford. (The size of the > > > > What in the world is on this thing to be 46MB?!?!?!? All 3 .flp's added > > together aren't this large. > > It has GENERIC plus modules plus kernel.debug for CURRENT snapshots, > not BOOTMFS. Then it has the wrong image for what we need. > >> Jake, a question for you: can this miniboot.iso image be used on > >> sparc64 like on Alpha (as Wilko demonstrated) instead of the ugly > >> boot.flp image? > > > > Why is making boot.flp "ugly"?? > > Because it uses a stripped down kernel with less support, and why > go through all the heartache to limit it's size when you can just > use a stock generic kernel? > > T DAVID PLZ 2 B RELAX K PLZ THX Whatever. You guys keep missing the idea and I can only guess it is from lack of using a lot of non-i386 hardware. Whatever. I'm trying hard to make things better here from the mess we have today. Sorry I can't read your mind on what is "ugly" about about boot.flp on the sparc. Since dokern.sh didn't sed out anything from GENERIC, I'd love to hear an explanation on how the sparc64 boot.flp kernel is "stripped down" and isn't a "stock generic kernel". -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030803153523.GB72914>