From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 10 08:38:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F00816A41F; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:38:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1B0743D4C; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:38:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA095BC96; Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:38:18 +0000 (UTC) To: Jung-uk Kim From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:14:37 EDT." <200509091214.41429.jkim@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:38:17 +0200 Message-ID: <8350.1126341497@phk.freebsd.dk> Sender: phk@phk.freebsd.dk Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Bigger boot block size? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:38:21 -0000 In message <200509091214.41429.jkim@FreeBSD.org>, Jung-uk Kim writes: >Sigh... But bsdlabel(8) should be able to handle this case when '-B' >option is given and first partition of the slice is UFS1, i. e., we >keep 'historical' boot1/boot2 for a while and drop the support >later. ;-) Guys, bsdlabel has no future, we need to migrate to something that is A: 64 capable B: supports more than 7/8 partitions C: understands that metadata should not be exposed in-band. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.