Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:30:03 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@freebsd.org> To: julian@elischer.org Cc: peter@wemm.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/boot/i386/loader Makefile Message-ID: <20010822003003C.jkh@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108220014360.45760-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20010822065555.9C46138FD@overcee.netplex.com.au> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108220014360.45760-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Erm, isn't Whistle down to 5 employees anyway at this point? It seems a little odd to get worked up over Whistle's upgrade path when its own parent company doesn't show a very clear interest in even having Whistle be around long enough to particularly matter.... - Jordan From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/boot/i386/loader Makefile Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:23:51 -0700 (PDT) > Whistle's oldest custommers have machines which were originally installed > with 2.2.5 > > The bootblocks are threfore 2.2.5 bootblocks > from /sys/i386/boot with the NEXTBOOT option > (as that is critical to how the machines operate) they cannot upgrade > to /sys/boot/i386 bootblocks because equivalent functionality to NEXTBOOT > is not present. At present they load a kernel called kernel.elf > and have the boot loader called 'kernel' so that the oldest machines can > be upgraded. > > On upgrade, the systems replace the entire root partition > (they have 2 root partitions and they newfs and then rewrite the one > that is not in use). However they do not replace the bootblocks from the > upgrade. It is possible that they can draw a line in the sand and say that > they will never upgrade past 4.x. So the point is moot, however. > > (It is also possible that if they ever do a 5.x release it would only be > reachable from a specific "other" release which could replace the > bootblocks. They would have to add the Nextboot support themselves, or > get elf loading working in the old bootblocks. > > Having said all that I doubt a 5.x release will ever happen at whistle. > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > Julian Elischer wrote: > > > I think whistle just lost their upgrade path.. > > > they were loading the loader with the old a.out bootblocks > > > (4.x based) > > > assuming nothing changed between then and now it should have worked for > > > them.. > > > > Which bootblocks? sys/i386/boot/biosboot? Or sys/boot/i386/boot2? > > > > sys/i386/boot/biosboot is not even in -current. > > > > sys/boot/i386/boot2 does both a.out and elf. > > > > IMHO, if Whistle are going to go out on a limb with a 5.x release with old > > bootblocks that are no longer in the tree, I'm sure they can figure out how > > to change "btxld -f elf" back to "btxld -f aout". > > > > I tried this about two weeks ago, on old bootblocks (pre-4.x) and at the > > boot prompt, "wd(0,a)/boot/loader" was rewarded with "Invalid kernel". > > Installing /boot/boot2 solved it. I dont know which 2.x bootblocks they > > were, but they were *not* happy. > > > > 3.x and beyond shipped with a.out+elf aware bootblocks. > > > > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > > > > > peter 2001/08/21 22:29:25 PDT > > > > > > > > Modified files: > > > > sys/boot/i386/loader Makefile > > > > Log: > > > > Generate an ELF /boot/loader instead of fake a.out. The fake a.out wrapp > > er > > > > did not work with old a.out-only bootblocks anyway. :-( > > > > Cheers, > > -Peter > > -- > > Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au > > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > > > > > 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?20010822003003C.jkh>