Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 10:04:49 -0600 From: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com> To: ade@demon.net Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: boot floppy banner Message-ID: <199802071604.KAA13955@kai.nectar.com> In-Reply-To: <E0y1BoF-00013u-00@sphinx.lovett.com> References: <E0y1BoF-00013u-00@sphinx.lovett.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <n@nectar.com> On 7 February 1998 at 9:04, Ade Lovett <ade@demon.net> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802071604.KAA13955>