Date: 08 Jan 1999 14:05:35 +0100 From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf Makefile.i386 Message-ID: <xzpzp7tewyo.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Peter Wemm's message of "Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:29:03 %2B0800" References: <199901080729.PAA40072@spinner.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> writes: > As a concession to Julian, he does have a point. If we installed the new > kernel in (say) /boot/kernel (or /modules/kernel) where the bootloader will > find it but the old bootblocks will not, there is no chance that people > will blow their feet off by replacing /kernel with something that is > unbootable. In that scenario, the worst that can happen if they don't > upgrade bootblocks is that they will reboot and get their old kernel again. Then we'd have to fix the new boot blocks to look for the kernel in the right place, and everyone using the "new, but not new enough" boot blocks would be fucked. You call that a solution? DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpzp7tewyo.fsf>