From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 28 11:22:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA99B16A4CE for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from postal3.es.net (postal3.es.net [198.128.3.207]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DD743D54 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:22:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal3.es.net (Postal Node 3) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:22:34 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id C84E45D07; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:22:33 -0700 (PDT) To: Fritz Heinrichmeyer In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:16:51 +0200." <200404280916.51605.fritz.heinrichmeyer@fernuni-hagen.de> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:22:33 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20040428182233.C84E45D07@ptavv.es.net> cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: boot0cfg with new default under current ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:22:35 -0000 > From: Fritz Heinrichmeyer > Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:16:51 +0200 > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > Am Dienstag, 27. April 2004 19:28 schrieb Doug White: > > On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Fritz Heinrichmeyer wrote: > > > recently i had no success in using boot0cfg and bsdlabel to repair boot > > > process under current. The only way that worked was booting with a > > > live-cd and using sysinstall from there. Is there some documentation > > > regarding freebsd-current for this? > > > > Man pages :) I think there is a handbook section on boot0cfg too, > > although I'd have to check. > > the line > > boot0cfg -m 0x5 -B -o packet ad0 || echo there were problems > > worked, the new mask showed that that there was actually something written and > boot process was no more broken. > > Maybe "-o packet" is a good default these days ... It probably should be. The number of systems not supporting it is getting smaller all of the time and the number of cases where the FreeBSD partition is not bootable without it is rapidly growing. It's VERY common to have Windows in the first slice and FreeBSD in the second (or higher). The size of the slice dedicated to Windows is often rather large so that the FreeBSD slice becomes unbootable unless -o packet is added. There is a POLA issue, so it would clearly need reference in UPDATING and such. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634