Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 06:00:16 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com> Cc: ru@ucb.crimea.ua, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [BTX loader]: boot command doesn't work as expected Message-ID: <36EC2360.BCDF6296@newsguy.com> References: <199903142024.WAA09966@ceia.nordier.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, tell the truth, you are right. There is no *reason* for it not to accept both ways, since boot doesn't take flags. Yeah... sorry, Ruslan, you are correct. I'll see what I can do about it. Robert Nordier wrote: > > Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > > > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > boot -c - works > > > boot /kernel - works > > > boot -c /kernel - doesn't work > > > > > > Any clue? > > > > You mean it doesn't work as _you_ expect it to? :-) > > > > help boot > > > > Boot boots. The -c flag is to be passed to the kernel, not to the > > command boot. > > > > boot /kernel -c > > I may be missing some subtle point here, but there should be no > difference between > > boot -c /kernel > > and > > boot /kernel -c > > The "official" boot2 syntax, in both the old and the new bootblocks, > is also > > [kernel_name] [options] > > but > > [options] [kernel_name] > > is equally acceptable in practice. > > In the case of loader, either way results in the same settings in the > "howto" flags passed to the kernel. > > -- > Robert Nordier -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "What happened?" "It moved, sir!" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36EC2360.BCDF6296>