From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Feb 7 08:05:40 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA23588 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:05:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from kai.nectar.com (kai.nectar.com [204.27.67.90]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA23488 for ; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 08:05:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nectar@kai.nectar.com) Received: from kai.nectar.com (localhost.nectar.com [127.0.0.1]) by kai.nectar.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA13955; Sat, 7 Feb 1998 10:04:49 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199802071604.KAA13955@kai.nectar.com> From: Jacques Vidrine To: ade@demon.net cc: Mike Smith , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: boot floppy banner In-reply-to: References: Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 10:04:49 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers" Let me state the obvious (but possibly naive) question: * Why not have a pair or more of different install images? An image for a.out, and an image for ELF. Or an image with BAD144 (+possibly other cruft) and an image without complete support for legacy hardware? Oh, or another: * Why not use multiple disks during installation as necessary? I know that there is a convenience issue, but let's talk about these possibilities. Shoot them down, if necessary. Jacques Vidrine On 7 February 1998 at 9:04, Ade Lovett wrote: > > If we're serious about moving towards an ELF based system, then > something is going to *have* to disappear from the current biosboot > code in order to support a.out/ELF kernel loading - which means that > hard decisions are going to have to be made to determine what's going > to get deleted to make space for this extra code. > > BAD144 support in biosboot certainly seems to be a prime contender > for deletion to support any extra functionality. > > -aDe > > -- > Ade Lovett, Demon Internet, Austin, Texas.