Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:52:12 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: boot block differences between 4.x and 6.x ? Message-ID: <43DFB1DC.2020001@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <200601311502.k0VF2uGP054807@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200601311502.k0VF2uGP054807@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver Fromme wrote: >Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> wrote: > > 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. > >FWIW, a standard 4-stable system boots fine with the boot >blocks (and loader) from RELENG_6. I'm running such a >mixed system: /boot/* and boot blocks from RELENG_6, and >everything else from RELENG_4. > >I think the most visible changes in the boot blocks was >UFS2 support and the removal of nextboot(8) support. > > which I hope to put back because we continue to need it. (The new nextboot being dependent on the root filesystem still being ok which is unacceptable to most embedded devices I've worked on, and why we still use the old bootblocks on all systems shipped.). >Best regards > Oliver > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43DFB1DC.2020001>