From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Apr 26 2: 7:45 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EEEB37B791 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 02:07:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA08381 for ; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:07:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id LAA03256 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:07:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.ddg.com (eunuch.ddg.com [216.30.58.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF3C37B569; Wed, 26 Apr 2000 02:07:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from nomad.dataplex.net (24.28.73.209) by mail.ddg.com with SMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server 2.1); Wed, 26 Apr 2000 04:07:06 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth To: obrien@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about building modules along with the kernel? Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 04:07:05 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.1.41] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org References: <20000426102521.C38026@freebie.lemis.com> <20000426075649.B75904@lucifer.bart.nl> <20000425234135.E1022@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20000425234135.E1022@dragon.nuxi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00042604070501.06932@nomad.dataplex.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 07:56:49AM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > > >X. Install the kernel and its modules in a subdirectory. I'd suggest > > > we call the subdirectory /kernel/, so we can rename the > > > subdirectories on install the way we currently rename the kernel > > > itself. What do we call the kernel? How about /kernel/FreeBSD? > > > > What's wrong with installing kernel in / and the modules under /modules? > > What modules do you use if you need to boot "kernel.old"? That is a > problem. How about "modules.old"? One thing that bothers me about the direction that I see is that we are getting away from the symplicity of the loader just reading a few sectors from the boot device. As we get more and more complex, the loader must understand more about the underlying file system. This makes it more complicated and less portable to alternate configurations. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message