Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:28:30 +0300
From:      Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>
To:        Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org>
Cc:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Subject:    Re: cvs commit: src/release Makefile src/release/i386 mkisoimages.sh
Message-ID:  <20030723212830.GA48101@sunbay.com>
In-Reply-To: <3F1EFC12.3020506@freebsd.org>
References:  <200307232053.h6NKrb0P032154@repoman.freebsd.org> <XFMail.20030723170044.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030723211319.GD41895@sunbay.com> <3F1EFC12.3020506@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 03:20:18PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> 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=20
> >>>   release/i386         mkisoimages.sh=20
> >>> Log:
> >>> Added the (undocumented) EMUL_BOOT variable (for TARGET=3Di386 only)
> >>> that causes the bootable ISO images to be created using the floppy
> >>> emulation (the old method) as opposed to the new "cdboot" method.
> >>>=20
> >>> Only copy boot.flp to the 2nd CD-ROM if this variable is defined.
> >>>=20
> >>> 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,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
How is my change limiting it, please explain?

mdconfig ... 2nd_cdrom_image
mount it
mess with the contents
copy boot.flp from the 1st CD to floppies/boot.flp
use mkisofs -b floppies/boot.flp


Cheers,
--=20
Ruslan Ermilov		Sysadmin and DBA,
ru@sunbay.com		Sunbay Software Ltd,
ru@FreeBSD.org		FreeBSD committer

--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/Hv3+Ukv4P6juNwoRAsQKAJ9DYkXANDpz9SNHujLO4MQSdDfFbgCeMaCu
8IHDMDrxLUUDyUV9DmGHlBg=
=Nyhv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Nq2Wo0NMKNjxTN9z--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030723212830.GA48101>