Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:21:17 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: boot block differences between 4.x and 6.x ? Message-ID: <20060131072117.B53681@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <43DF77B7.4050800@samsco.org>; from scottl@samsco.org on Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 07:44:07AM -0700 References: <20060131061812.A53329@xorpc.icir.org> <43DF77B7.4050800@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 07:44:07AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > maybe some of you know the answer here... > > > > the revised picobsd script (attached here, it uses > > sysutils/makefs instead of vnconfig/mdconfig so it can > > run as a non privileged user) that i was using to > > create images with the 4.11 boot blocks (boot1 and boot2), > > does not seem to work anymore with the boot blocks > > taken from 6.0 (and so, -current as well). > > > > When i force it to use the 4.x boot blocks, all is fine, > > and the picobsd.bin produced (built on 6.0 using 7-current > > sources) boots fine on qemu. > > > > I am a bit puzzled on what could be the relevant change in boot1/boot2 > > could have caused the loss of functionality. ... > The big difference is that the boot blocks grew significantly to > support UFS2. > > Scott ok good pointer.. so could it be that the boot blocks as installed by 6.0-RELEASE are UFS2_ONLY, and the file system produced by makefs is UFS1, hence the problem ? How do i tell, and would it make sense to build, in the release, also a version of /boot/boot that can deal with ufs1 ? cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060131072117.B53681>