From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Nov 17 17:37:26 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA28602
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA28594
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:37:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.7.6/8.6.9) id MAA01807; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:31:37 +1100
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:31:37 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199611180131.MAA01807@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: dg@root.com, julian@whistle.com
Subject: Re: Memory probe(s) in FreeBSD
Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, erich@uruk.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>>    This is fine with me; I just object to dropping support for older
>> bootblocks. I don't object to dropping support for really-old (pre-2.0.5)
>> bootblocks, however.
>
>especially when it's so easy to install new ones..
>
>(disklabel -B wd0)

I had this in mind when I suggested dropping support for the not so old
interfaces.  `disklabel -B' was too dangerous to use routinely before
2.0.5.

This discussion is moot if pre-2.0.5 is really-old.  `struct bootinfo'
hasn't changed since 6 months before 2.0.5R :-).  I thought that
really-old meant pre-2.0 and old meant pre-2.0.5.

Bruce