Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:26:39 +0100
From:      Thomas Backman <serenity@exscape.org>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: [PATCH] Build a separate ZFS-enabled loader.zfs
Message-ID:  <F1E19C4E-DB2A-4E3E-A9FB-979058D136F0@exscape.org>
In-Reply-To: <200911171017.58140.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <200911171017.58140.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 17, 2009, at 4:17 PM, John Baldwin wrote:

> This patch is a workaround to enabling ZFS support by default in the =
boot=20
> loader.  It enables building a loader.zfs which is a ZFS-enabled =
loader and=20
> changing zfsboot and gptzfsboot to use /boot/loader.zfs instead=20
> of /boot/loader.  I have only tested that things built ok, I have not=20=

> boot-tested it as I don't have ZFS setup anywhere.  The patch is =
available at=20
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/loader.zfs/.  You will also need to copy=20=

> the 'loader.zfs/Makefile' file from that URL into a new=20
> sys/boot/i386/loader.zfs directory after applying the patch.
If I may ask (and sorry for my ignorance, but): what problem does this =
workaround solve?
Isn't the whole problem with ZFS loaders the license, and because of the =
licence, that a ZFS-capable loader isn't built by default?
In other words: Why not use LOADER_ZFS_SUPPORT as long as you have to =
choose between setting an option or using a patch? Neither works out of =
the box, so you might as well pick the solution that already exists, no =
patching involved.
I can only assume I'm missing something vital. :)

(Please note: Makefiles aren't my strongest suite; I tried to figure the =
answer out by reading the patch, but couldn't. I wrote my first own =
Makefile, ~15 lines, this weekend.)

Regards,
Thomas=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?F1E19C4E-DB2A-4E3E-A9FB-979058D136F0>