From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 3 14:44:14 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id OAA28423 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA28408 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id OAA11380; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:41:43 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199607032141.OAA11380@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: New (BIOS) bootblock ?feature? To: julian@ref.tfs.com (Julian Elischer) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:41:42 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199607032114.OAA01694@ref.tfs.com> from "Julian Elischer" at Jul 3, 96 02:14:03 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > do we want to integrate this? > Since I originally ported the bootblocks to freeBSD, I haven't done much > with them.. This is my first real return to the area.. > > I have been askled to make the following patches to the bootblocks, > together with a user-level program to control it...... > > The patches are now complete and working, so I want to know if the gang > thinks I should integrate them to our sources or whether my client should > just keep them separate.. > > Programmable one-time bootstring.. (or many time) How does this interact with erich@uruk.org's "multiboot" proposed standard and code? It sounds like a step forward, and any step forward should be integrated (IMO). It would certaily solve that Italian PC Week reviewer's boot problems... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.