From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Jun  1 19:47:36 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA26059
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.barrnet.net (mail.barrnet.net [131.119.246.7])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA26031
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by mail.barrnet.net (8.7.5/MAIL-RELAY-LEN) with ESMTP id TAA23809 for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 19:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.7.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA28317; Sat, 1 Jun 1996 20:43:17 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <199606020243.UAA28317@rover.village.org>
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Subject: Re: boot with multiple freebsd partitions 
Cc: Jian-Da Li <jdli@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 30 May 1996 11:40:44 PDT
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 1996 20:43:17 -0600
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

: > 	So, will our boot block become smarter someday ?!
: Mmmmmmmaybe.. :-)

The boot blocks are pushing the size limits and aren't as smart as
they could be due to these limits.  And a lot of work has been put
into making them smaller, so it is unlikely that additional shrinkage
would be possible short of, say, gziping them somehow...

Warner