Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:00:15 +0200 From: Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> To: Bryce <678yym@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /stand/i386/boot0/boot0.S and other boot files under i386 Message-ID: <CAFYkXjk2qMnZcopi8MKjyfmrasd2_TPnOpoDXZ0oxwRsmSz0kg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADF3e16x8EzGkPOFWFT_tBSzDUX5QYAPXLbLi0sUVdP64-FWEw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADF3e16x8EzGkPOFWFT_tBSzDUX5QYAPXLbLi0sUVdP64-FWEw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 8:58=E2=80=AFPM Bryce <678yym@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, list > Ive been looking at boots.S and found some things that could use improvem= ent. I've changed a few things around here and there, but so far have not b= roken compatibility in terms of appearance and interaction. > How would the list feel about breaking compatibility? Would you all find = it acceptable if I was able to add features like booting from a logical par= tition and adding error checking capabilities for the MBR (and thus the abi= lity to discern a GPT from MBR drive)? > Last time there were any major changes seems to have been 20 years ago, w= hat does the list think? MBR is kinda obsolete but still usable. GPT is the way to go today and not only on x86. BSD folks are quite opposing to enforced (i.e. breaking) changes and I agree with that. If its working untouched for over 20 years then why break it?? What would break exactly and why? What are implications? What are the primary and side benefits of a change? Is there another way to solve the same problem without breaking perfectly working stuff? --=20 CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFYkXjk2qMnZcopi8MKjyfmrasd2_TPnOpoDXZ0oxwRsmSz0kg>