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>