Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 04:07:05 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about building modules along with the kernel? Message-ID: <00042604070501.06932@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <20000425234135.E1022@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20000426102521.C38026@freebie.lemis.com> <20000426075649.B75904@lucifer.bart.nl> <20000425234135.E1022@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 07:56:49AM +0200, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > > >X. Install the kernel and its modules in a subdirectory. I'd suggest > > > we call the subdirectory /kernel/, so we can rename the > > > subdirectories on install the way we currently rename the kernel > > > itself. What do we call the kernel? How about /kernel/FreeBSD? > > > > What's wrong with installing kernel in / and the modules under /modules? > > What modules do you use if you need to boot "kernel.old"? That is a > problem. How about "modules.old"? One thing that bothers me about the direction that I see is that we are getting away from the symplicity of the loader just reading a few sectors from the boot device. As we get more and more complex, the loader must understand more about the underlying file system. This makes it more complicated and less portable to alternate configurations. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00042604070501.06932>