From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 3 05:57:08 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id FAA29073 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 05:57:08 -0700 Received: from mail1.digital.com (mail1.digital.com [204.123.2.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id FAA29062 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 05:57:05 -0700 Received: from rks32.pcs.dec.com by mail1.digital.com; (5.65 EXP 4/12/95 for V3.2/1.0/WV) id AA22544; Tue, 3 Oct 1995 05:41:31 -0700 Received: by rks32.pcs.dec.com (Smail3.1.27.1 #16) id m0t06Ye-0005OqC; Tue, 3 Oct 95 13:34 MEZ Message-Id: Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 13:34 MEZ From: garyj@rks32.pcs.dec.com (Gary Jennejohn) To: hackers%freebsd.org@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD 2.1 will require a minimum of 8MB for installation. Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Joerg Wunsch writes: > As Brian Tao wrote: > > > > > Very simple: somebody actually _has_to_implement_it_! > > > > Delete out the extraneous driver lines in the kernel config file, > > rebuild the boot floppy, and try it out on a 4-meg machine to see if > > it boots? Am I missing something? > > Yes, you are. Where's the diff to drop it in? :-) I've been playing around with this and have discovered that with a few trivial changes in /sys/i386/boot/kzipboot/Makefile and /usr/src/usr.bin/kzip.c it's easy to stick the decompress code at the end of the compressed image. I tested my changes with a GENERIC kernel (the one from the 2.1.0-950922-SNAP), loaded at 2MB instead of 3MB, and it worked. I'm now trying to generate a real boot kernel with an MFS file system so that I can do a realistic test. After this I'll post diffs (-c), unless someone beats me to it. It would simplify and speed things up enormously if I could just grab an uncompressed kernel with MFS already in it from somplace. Jordan, got one laying around somewhere that I can get at (freefall) ? > > That's what i was about to say: Jordan and David have enough items on > their plate. So if they don't have time to implement it, somebody has > to deal with it and make a proposal that's not only verbal, but > accompanied by a diff -u output that would cleanly drop into the tree, > so all they have to do is reviewing it and take care for not breaking > anything else. > > Guess why i've been running a "make release" last sunday...? :) But no > promises. Same here. I can't seem to get the hang of making a release :( Gary J (gj@pcs.dec.com)