From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 3 15:05:17 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA29995 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ref.tfs.com ([206.245.251.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA29988 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id PAA02238; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199607032202.PAA02238@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: New (BIOS) bootblock ?feature? To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:02:50 -0700 (PDT) From: "JULIAN Elischer" Cc: hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199607032141.OAA11380@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Jul 3, 96 02:41:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b] 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? can you give me a pointer? > > 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... which were? > > > Terry Lambert > terry@lambert.org > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. >