Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:00:44 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/release Makefile src/release/i386 mkisoimages.sh Message-ID: <XFMail.20030723170044.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200307232053.h6NKrb0P032154@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23-Jul-2003 Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > ru 2003/07/23 13:53:37 PDT > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > release Makefile > release/i386 mkisoimages.sh > Log: > Added the (undocumented) EMUL_BOOT variable (for TARGET=i386 only) > that causes the bootable ISO images to be created using the floppy > emulation (the old method) as opposed to the new "cdboot" method. > > Only copy boot.flp to the 2nd CD-ROM if this variable is defined. > > Reviewed by: murray I would always copy the floppy. The reason is so that all of the needed bits for both boot types are available to vendors. I can see vendors taking the contents of an ISO, mounting it using mdconfig, adding more bit in another dir, then using mkisofs to generate a new ISO with a different boot method. This would be done w/o rolling an entire release but using the ISO from the Project's release. In other words, I don't think we should require vendors to roll an entire release just to use boot.flp instead of cdboot or vice versa. Please just leave both cdboot and boot.flp on both ISOs. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030723170044.jhb>