From owner-cvs-all Wed Oct 24 16:35:37 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mail11.speakeasy.net (mail11.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EAC537B407 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 48156 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2001 23:35:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 24 Oct 2001 23:35:31 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20011025085614.S75481@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 16:35:31 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/release/i386 dokern.sh Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, Jordan Hubbard , ru@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 24-Oct-01 Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 01:51:14AM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote: >>> I was just pointing out that lack of MSDOSFS option will lack the >>> ability to install from the DOS partition, which is essential part >>> of installation, no? >> >>Thank you Ruslan, but this I already knew since it's pretty obvious to >>even the slowest reader that removing MSDOSFS will remove this as an >>installation option. > > How about only removing part of MSDOSFS? For installation purposes, > you only need to be able to read from the various filesystems (other > than UFS). A read-only FS implementation will normally be > significantly smaller than a R/W implementation (boot2 includes a R/O > UFS implementation in less than 8KB). It should be possible to > produce a cut-down module that is capable of reading an 8+3 FAT > filesystem that is significantly smaller than the existing MSDOSFS > module. > > Do enough people do installs from an MS-DOS FAT filesystem to make > implementing this worthwhile? > > Of potentially more widespread use: The recent split of NFS into > client and server modules means that supporting NFS installs now > translates to less kernel bloat. Would it be worthwhile implementing > a read-only NFS client? There is already a NFS_NOSERVER kernel option. I think we use it on the boot kernel already. If we don't we probably should. > Peter -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message