Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:20:18 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release Makefile src/release/i386 mkisoimages.sh Message-ID: <3F1EFC12.3020506@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20030723211319.GD41895@sunbay.com> References: <200307232053.h6NKrb0P032154@repoman.freebsd.org> <XFMail.20030723170044.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030723211319.GD41895@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 05:00:44PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > >>On 23-Jul-2003 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >> >>>ru 2003/07/23 13:53:37 PDT >>> >>> FreeBSD src repository >>> >>> Modified files: >>> release Makefile >>> release/i386 mkisoimages.sh >>> Log: >>> Added the (undocumented) EMUL_BOOT variable (for TARGET=i386 only) >>> that causes the bootable ISO images to be created using the floppy >>> emulation (the old method) as opposed to the new "cdboot" method. >>> >>> Only copy boot.flp to the 2nd CD-ROM if this variable is defined. >>> >>> Reviewed by: murray >> >>I would always copy the floppy. The reason is so that all of the needed >>bits for both boot types are available to vendors. >> > > Running "make release" with -DEMUL_BOOT but without -DMAKE_ISOS does > just that. My intent was for a standard "make release" to not have > unnecessary bits. There's no point in cdrom/disc2/floppies/boot.flp > if we aren't even going to use it. > > >>I can see vendors >>taking the contents of an ISO, mounting it using mdconfig, adding more >>bit in another dir, then using mkisofs to generate a new ISO with a >>different boot method. This would be done w/o rolling an entire release >>but using the ISO from the Project's release. In other words, I don't >>think we should require vendors to roll an entire release just to use >>boot.flp instead of cdboot or vice versa. Please just leave both cdboot >>and boot.flp on both ISOs. >> > > boot.flp is always available on the 1st disc in a set anyway; I don't > see a problem copying it from here to the custom 2nd disc. > > > Cheers, I believe that John is asking for you to not limit the options that are available, and also not require that a 'make release' is re-run to have those options be available. Whether or not *you* choose to use this flexibility is not the point. I think that John's position is quite reasonable. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F1EFC12.3020506>