From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 3 22:45:34 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535A087B for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:45:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D438FC0A for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TUmTD-0002I7-Pv for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:45:39 +0100 Received: from 79-139-19-75.prenet.pl ([79.139.19.75]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:45:39 +0100 Received: from jb.1234abcd by 79-139-19-75.prenet.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:45:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: jb Subject: Re: Booting 2nd(!) FreeBSD installation sitting on same disk Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:45:18 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <20121103165421.GA76199@bali> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 79.139.19.75 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:16.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/16.0) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 22:45:34 -0000 jb gmail.com> writes: > ... > I do not know the story of active slice in FreeBSD, but I know that neither > Windows nor Linux require active partitions (in their jargon) to boot from any > more. > Perhaps it is time to review this requirement in FreeBSD and drop it if > possible. > Opinions are welcome. > If there are no counterarguments, we will create a PR# to start the process. I forgot to mention that in such case a new boot option would be introduced to set a default boot item in a boot manager's menu. jb