From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 1 01:34:04 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49B061DD for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:34:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nahkohe.jetcafe.org (nahkohe.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BC5A2B73 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 01:34:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Envelope-To: Received: from [205.147.26.4] (hokkshideh.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.4]) by nahkohe.jetcafe.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id s611Y1KF060016 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:34:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53B21009.5000901@jetcafe.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:34:01 -0700 From: Dave Hayes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: FreeBSD 9.3-RC2 and vmware 5.1 esxi (not a duplicate) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 01:34:04 -0000 This may look like a duplicate of <53B1DB21.7020900@jetcafe.org> but it isn't. It's the same issue, but now it also belongs to the stock ISO. We tested the stock FreeBSD 9.3-RC2 iso on vmware 5.1 esxi as a guest. It says clearly CD Loader 1.2 and then there's screen gibberish which seems to indicate something is not found. This evidence seems to indicate that there was a bootloader change between r255456 and r267340 that may be causing this; I am not familiar with the boot code enough to claim this is correct or not. Does anyone have any insight into this issue? Should this issue be forwarded to a different mailing list? Thanks in advance. :) -- Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>>> *The opinions expressed above are entirely my own* <<<< The original purpose of cultivating restraint is so that eventually...one will not need to have restraint.