From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Dec  5 01:33:27 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id BAA06662
          for current-outgoing; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:33:27 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA06655
          for <FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:33:24 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA28894; Fri, 5 Dec 1997 01:33:11 -0800 (PST)
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: sos@FreeBSD.dk, dg@root.com, FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.ORG,
        regnauld@deepo.prosa.dk
Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 Dec 1997 18:46:25 +1100."
             <199712050746.SAA23963@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 01:33:11 -0800
Message-ID: <28890.881314391@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> (the magic number at this address is of course 0xNNNNNNed to jump over
> the header).  Perhaps the boot loader should initialize paging so that
> the startup code doesn't need to be written in assembler (to relocate
> from low physical memory to high virtual memory).

I think we were wondering more about the size constraints on getting a
single-stage bootblock to recognize both ELF and a.out images. :-)

I know you're a fan of our current boot blocks, but this sounds like
more intelligence than can be fit into our existing boot block code.
Is there a secret GRUB project going or something that I don't know
about?  How were the ELFsters planning on booting either type of
kernel during the transition period? :)

					Jordan